World of Pageantry

World of Pageantry

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Are you voting?
Poll ended at Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:07 am
Yes 70%  70%  [ 26 ]
No 16%  16%  [ 6 ]
Under 18 13%  13%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 37
Author Message
 Post subject: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:07 am 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 2412
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
So, election day is rapidly approaching. I know a number of you are 18+ and will be voting on 12 California Propositions on Nov 4.

[SIDEBAR] Anyone who is as of yet not planning on voting: Wake up. This election is way too important to miss. [/SIDEBAR]

I'm making this topic for some productive discussion (why you support/oppose them) on the propositions on the California Ballot. I have my choices already, but maybe some of you uber-educated out there can help sway me.

Here's a list, so have it!
Prop 1A (previously Prop 1): SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT
Prop 2: STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS.
Prop 3: CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM.
Prop 4: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY
Prop 5: NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION
Prop 6: POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS
Prop 7: RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION
Prop 8: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY
Prop 9: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE
Prop 10: ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Prop 11: REDISTRICTING
Prop 12: VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008

The California Voter's Guide can be found here

_________________
It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:32 am 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
Most of these I'm undecided on. I'll review my voter's handbook this weekend and make final decisions on all but the two which I've already decided upon.

No on 4.

No on 8 (possibly as important to me as the actual Presidential election).

I could rant and rave about Prop 8 for days. Suffice it to say, I've never seen such blatant lying and misrepresentation of facts as I have from the Yes on 8 cabal, much of the funding of which is from Utah. I wish more people realized (a) that it was a conservative, Republican-dominated court of appeals that legalized gay marriage in this state, and (b) the court's opinion (a massive 30,000-word essay) addresses and destroys the legality of, point-by-point, every single argument I've ever heard for restricting marriage to be between a man and a woman.

I'll leave it at that for now.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:09 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:20 am
Posts: 293
Location: Sacramento, CA
No on 4

No on 8 - definately as important to me as the presidential election. My family is directly affected.

Undecided on the others, but getting a group together tomorrow night to discuss.

_________________
~twinmomma


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:42 am 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:24 am
Posts: 2490
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
We're in a Mail-In Precinct, so our votes have been cast. Off the top of my head:

Prop 1A: NO (I don't need a fast choo-choo to San Fran ... Vegas maybe, but not San Fran. Also, see #3)
Prop 2: YES (... and no I'm not in PETA)
Prop 3: NO (I am not in the mood to pay for more bonds unless it is for education and specifically MUSIC and arts education)
Prop 4: NO (but serious reservations with that No since parents are legally responsible for their children until emancipated or age 18)
Prop 7: NO (because I don't like how it is worded and looks like another "Enron" set up)
Prop 8: NO (Just another way the government can run our lives or try to)
Prop 11: NO (I think I've voted no on redistricting 5 or 6 times now ... do these people ever give up?)
Prop 12: NO (See #3)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:21 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 2412
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
*Sigh*. I hesitated to post my opinion with the original post because I assumed I would be all alone on the issues important to me. Looks like I was right. I'll briefly put my views up. *Prepares to be tar and feathered*.

Everything but 2, 4, and 8: NO. They're overpriced (especially 1A) schemes that will cost too much money during a major economic crisis. Especially bad when you consider that most of the money (if approved) will be spent on administrative costs and not doing what the props propose.

NO on 2: Every serious review of Prop 2 I've ever heard has concluded that Prop 2 would drive a good portion of California Agriculture out to other, more lenient, states (thus eliminating California jobs and profit). At the very least, Prop 2 would significantly increase the cost of food in California. I'm not willing to pay that increase for "animal rights".

YES on 4: While I hold that Roe VS Wade was a critical decision to protect woman's rights, I DON'T support the present-day "abortion culture" it engendered. When Roe VS Wade was decided, it was difficult for a woman to get an abortion even in the case of a serious health risk. Unfortunately, today, I feel that we've shifted to a culture that - under the guise of "abortion rights" (ie cases of rape, incest, and woman's health) - promotes free access to abortion as contraception.

YES on 8: It's not about equality (same-sex couples are already guaranteed marriage equality under California Domestic Partnership Law). It's about protecting religious organizations and religious people.

_________________
It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:30 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:21 pm
Posts: 444
Location: Rowland, CA
mkosbie wrote:
It's about protecting religious organizations and religious people.



:crazy:
I hate HATE HATE that argument. You're not getting married. THEY are.

_________________
The o_O emoticon gives me the heebee jeebees.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:33 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 2412
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
senza cervello wrote:
mkosbie wrote:
It's about protecting religious organizations and religious people.



:crazy:
I hate HATE HATE that argument. You're not getting married. THEY are.

Try reading the link. It's NOT ABOUT MARRIAGE. FYI, the link is from NPR (National Public Radio), probably one of the most liberal news outlets around.

_________________
It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:44 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
mkosbie wrote:
YES on 8: It's not about equality (same-sex couples are already guaranteed marriage equality under California Domestic Partnership Law).

Doesn't happen. The Court's opinion addressed the short-comings of the CDPL. If you think domestic partners have 100% of the same rights as married couples, I can assure you that's not the case.


mkosbie wrote:
It's about protecting religious organizations and religious people.

Last I checked, marriage is not the domain of any one religion and should not be defined by any one religion. Also, explain how gay marriage infringes upon freedom to worship or practice religion? All of the instances in that NPR article deal with business transactions, and prejudicial business practices are ILLEGAL, regardless of how much people try to shield them and wrap them up in the cloak of religious freedom. Replace the words "same sex" with "Muslim" or "black" in every instance of that NPR article and see how monstrously wrong they all sound.

I find it completely outrageous that some people think they have a moral or religious right to treat others as lesser human beings. Not in my America, not as long as I can still cast a vote; I will fight against that with every fiber of my being.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:50 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:21 pm
Posts: 444
Location: Rowland, CA
-edit- hostrauser said it with way more class than my crass response.

And yes, I read your irrelevant link.

_________________
The o_O emoticon gives me the heebee jeebees.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:16 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 2412
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Hostrauser wrote:
Doesn't happen. The Court's opinion addressed the short-comings of the CDPL. If you think domestic partners have 100% of the same rights as married couples, I can assure you that's not the case.

I read the courts opinion ("In Re Marriages") on the legal differences between domestic partners and married couples. The court cited exactly nine differences (footnote 24, page 42), all of which were either procedural (eg filing a "Declaration of Domestic Partnership" VS a "Marriage License") or restricted by federal law. California cannot do ANYTHING to affect the items restricted by federal law (such as public employee benefits), whether Prop 8 passes or not.

As the court concluded in "In Re Marriages", domestic partnership and marriage are substantive legal equivalents in California. The only difference is the term (which FYI is what the court found to be unconstitutional).

Houstrauser wrote:
All of the instances in that NPR article deal with business transactions, and prejudicial business practices are ILLEGAL, regardless of how much people try to shield them and wrap them up in the cloak of religious freedom. Replace the words "same sex" with "Muslim" or "black" in every instance of that NPR article and see how monstrously wrong they all sound.

Why would I equate so-called "business transactions" to marriage? Two reasons: 1) Marriage itself could potentially be considered a "business transaction". I'm aware that the current decision specifically indicates that it should not set precedent requiring a religious institution to solemnize same-sex marriages. That's this decision though. Prop 8 guarantees another decision couldn't change that later on. 2) These transactions reflect a pattern of same-sex partners impinging on the religious rights of others. Many of them (ie YU Housing) even directly deal with marriage. If Prop 8 doesn't pass, that pattern could expand to deal more directly with religious institutions.

Now, reread that article. In every instance, the same-sex couple was either offered an alternative, or was going against a core value of the institution they wanted to do business with. It would be like me going to the ACLU and asking them to defend me in a wrongful termination suit against a recently pregnant woman. If they say no, is that discriminatory?

Seriously though, lets look at a few of those cases:
Yeshiva University Housing: YU is an Orthodox Jewish University whose Mission Statement includes: "teach[ing] knowledge enlightened by values". The University believes that homosexuality is morally wrong and is a corrupting influence on its students. They didn't want that influence on their married students, but the courts didn't care. Other Universities exist for same-sex students. Others don't for Orthodox Jews.

Catholic Charities Adoption: Catholic Charities focused on placing kids in religiously oriented Catholic families. The birth parents of the children they placed wanted this for their kids. The court decided it didn't matter, that the rights of a same-sex couple who wanted to adopt a Catholic child trumped those of a religious Catholic couple who wanted to give their child up for adoption. Other agencies exist for same-sex couples. Others don't for Catholics.

Artificial Insemination: The OB/GYN in this case was a devout Christian, but recognized that she shouldn't try to push that ideal onto her patient. That's why she referred the patient to her partner who PERFORMED THE PROCEDURE. There was a direct and immediate alternative for the same-sex couple, but not for the doctor.

_________________
It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:03 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Posts: 3598
Location: Escondido, Ca
mkosbie wrote:
YES on 8: It's not about equality (same-sex couples are already guaranteed marriage equality under California Domestic Partnership Law). It's about protecting religious organizations and religious people.


Sorry Mike, gonna have to disagree with you on that one. This sounds too much like the "equal but separate" debacle. I believe that denying same sex marriages is completely unconstitutional, this has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equality. You can't just say they have "Equal Rights" but you can't ACTUALLY be equal.
I do believe, however, that religious institutions should NOT be required to allow same sex marriages, but legal marriage HAS to be allowed.

Hostrauser, my mom disagrees that the court of appeals that legalized gay marriage was conservative or republican dominated. She couldn't actually back up the statement with any proof, but if you care to share some info. that I can blast back at her, that would be great lol.

_________________
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:40 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 2412
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
The Aceman wrote:
Hostrauser, my mom disagrees that the court of appeals that legalized gay marriage was conservative or republican dominated. She couldn't actually back up the statement with any proof, but if you care to share some info. that I can blast back at her, that would be great lol.

I don't think it's relevant, but he's right on that one. Six of the seven justices (including the Chief) currently serving on the Supreme Court of California (the one who rendered the decision in "In Re Marriages") were appointed by Republican governors. More on Wikipedia.

The Aceman wrote:
This sounds too much like the "equal but separate" debacle.

The thing is, Plessy VS Fergusson and the whole "separate but equal" debacle was anything but equal. "Black" schools, restaurants, fountains, and everything else were far weaker institutions. The Supreme Court held that in the case of California Marriage VS Domestic Partnership, the two are equal in every substantive way except for the term.

I still don't think this is a strong enough argument against Prop 8 though. Why? The Supreme Court ruled only that using two different terms, one for opposite-sex couples and for same-sex, was unequal. They specifically noted (without making a ruling) that changing the term for BOTH groups (ie making everyone have a civil union) would probably be constitutional. So here's the question, would that be enough for same-sex couples? If opposite-sex couples had to have "domestic partnerships" too? I don't think it would.

I don't think it's about "equality" (as I've said), I think it's about wanting to usurp marriage. Marriage is and always has been a religious institution. You can't change that.

_________________
It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:03 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:24 am
Posts: 2490
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
mkosbie wrote:
I don't think it's about "equality" (as I've said), I think it's about wanting to usurp marriage. Marriage is and always has been a religious institution. You can't change that.

The biggest issues here are:
1) The church and state are SEPARATE;
2) The states have priority over the federal government;
3) We CAN change what is perceived as a violation of human rights.

My personal opinion is we as a culture are morally bankrupt, BUT the government has tried time and time again (can you say"Prohibition"?) to direct the people how to lead their lives. This is not a matter of Republican vs. Democrat or Judeo-Christian vs. Pagan ... it is a matter of what the government tells us what they want us to do or not to do. As an example of how this can go very very wrong, study history and various governments rules according to religious law. Call me a Moderate Liberterian.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:28 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:36 pm
Posts: 641
Location: So. CA
mkosbie wrote:
NPR (National Public Radio), probably one of the most liberal news outlets around.

Yes. Any news program that spends at least several minutes of air time on each story, making sure both sides are represented with additional commentary and interviews is definitely liberal. We definitely need to pay more attention to the blowhards who lie and twist the stories to serve their own agendas.

For those of you blinded by the right who have demonized the word liberal by using it in a negative connotation for the last 20 years, look it up. It's not an insult to be called "broad-minded".

_________________
"The conductor of an orchestra doesn't make a sound. He depends for his power on his ability to make other people powerful." - Benjamin Zander


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:37 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
mkosbie wrote:
I don't think it's about "equality" (as I've said), I think it's about wanting to usurp marriage. Marriage is and always has been a religious institution. You can't change that.

Phooey. You look back thousands of years and what do you see in EVERY society across the globe? Arranged marriages, political alliances, large dowries of stock animals and land... I'd argue that marriage has always been about business not religion.

I still don't think any of the NPR's examples are any good. You're still stuck on the notion that just because an alternative exists everything's fair. "We don't serve your kind here, try that store across the street" (exactly what the OB/GYN did). That's not right. And it doesn't matter if the "store across the street" has the exact same inventory at the exact same prices. It is the ways that are being protested here, not necessarily the means (although those, too, are often inadequate).

Look, bottom line: when you engage in business in America (and I'm not talking just about profit: any activity or service used by the American public) you have to serve everyone. You can't just choose to serve straight people, or only whites, or only people wearing blue shirts, or only girls with large breasts. You can't just choose to serve only those who agree with your personal, private beliefs and ideologies. You have to serve everyone, and everyone equally: black, white, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight.

You want a career where your religious beliefs are the paramount, overriding factor? Join a monastery.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
  http://www.worldofpageantry.com Copyright © 1996 - 2006 Email:  admin@worldofpageantry.com  

Site design and maintenance by Dave Schaafsma at Dave's Web Dynamics