Wow. Really? You would be more accepting of some brokeass child hoarding people, as long as they were opposite sex, than of a couple of dudes who adopted(and therefore meet certain financial stipulations) a kid? rediculous.
Agreed, provided both parents are committed to their parenting. I support adoption because there are children in need, and certainly support it over the use of fertility drugs, but it's better in most cases for the child to be raised by his birth parents. You're right that specific examples of poor parenting don't detract from that, nor do examples of wonderful adoptive parents. Interestingly enough, I know 3 people who are the children of gay parents in straight marriages. In 1 situation, the parents stayed together despite the revelation. In the other 2, the father left. Mind you, we're talking 2 in the 80s and one the very early 90s. In all 3 situations, the now adult children were much closer to their father, both before and after the split. They actually have had better relationships with their parents than any of my other friends who have come from divorced homes. Again, doesn't even remotely prove or disprove any sort of rule. I've just always found it interesting. This, however, I disagree with. I have yet to meet a single person who voted in the election, voted yes on Prop 8, and did so for a rational, legal reason. I was raised in a very Christian home in a very conservative area and continue to have a lot of very conservative friends. Every single one admits to having voted that way because they believe it's a sin. And here's the kicker...most of them recognized their behavior as irrational! They admit, often before being asked, that their minds tell them they should have voted no, but they simply couldn't do it. It was true for both sides. Here in Southern California, our news was flooded with absurd tweets and comments from celebrities with completely visceral reactions to Prop 8. There was so little rational thought involved for the average voter here. That's why I maintain it never should have been put to a vote. If we're determining a civil right in this matter, why wouldn't you leave it to people with the experience and knowledge to determine that matter? California has failed to allow its elected, informed officials (and yes, I know our politicians are nothing to write home about in a relative sense) to do their job and determine the law on this matter. In fact, the legislature DID vote to allow gay marriage...TWICE. Schwarzenegger struck it down twice, not because of his own determination of constitutionality, but because the uninformed populace had issued an initiative to define a right. So, the court stepped up and once again decided in favor of gay marriage and AGAIN the people were allowed to make an emotional decision, this time to change the constitution. It's a shame. Had the legislature, or the court, killed the matter, so be it. They're elected to make those decisions. To suggest, however, that the most rational thing to do was to put the matter in the hands of the people? You should take a visit out here before you make that claim.
You can't presume to speak for seven million voters. All they need was some rational reason. Doesn't even need to be a very good rational reason. I can think of several of them that would be far more than just sufficient. But here's the bigger point: There are 17.3 million registered voters in California (I had to look it up, of course). 13.7 million voted in the Prop 8 election. That's almost an 80% turnout. Pretty friggin' incredible, but it was a Presidential election, and that will always yield the highest turnout. The real kicker is Barack won the state 61-37%. Prop 8 won 52-48%. Now, I'd argue that 61% of the California electorate is stupid from the start; but, there's too much crossover between Barack voters and Prop 8 voters to suggests that these are rightwing nuts crazed with misinformation. I'm open to the notion that 61% of California voters are dopes, but it's just tough to make the electoral math support that. I'd also trust the unwashed plurality vote over a legislative vote in almost every single scenario. I have two legislators and a state senator that represent my town, and I wouldn't trust any one of them to vote on appetizers from a TGI Fridays menu.
No, I can't speak for seven million voters, let alone the 13.7 that I'm somewhat generalizing (I don't feel rationality existed in sufficient supply on EITHER side). However, I disagree that the absence of a very good rational reason to vote on an issue of rights is appropriate. And it was an issue of rights, rights which the California State Legislature and California judicial system had both attempted to grant. How can you suggest that rights can be determined with only a modicum of rationality? I don't think it was 'rightwing nuts', and I should have been clearer about that. Many of the people I know who voted for it are actually liberal in many respects and acknowledged that the contradiction which existed in the way they voted on this issue fell because of their religious beliefs. More than a few even said they recognized that gays should logically have a right to marry, but they couldn't vote against the bill because they felt it was a sin. I have a problem with that. A huge crossover existed within the black community. Conversations with my family members in that community were perhaps the most enlightening given the huge stigma that exists. I spoke with cousins who, still unmarried, have multiple children with multiple people, and heard them tell me that it's 'not how God wants families to exist.' You're right, I can't speak for 7 million voters. I can tell you, however, that in speaking with a few hundred people in the past year and a half since the vote, and reading and hearing countless other opinions, I've seen enough for me to have the opinion that a vote of this nature should not have been left to the public. I'm afraid I can't agree with the last statement, to moderate extent in a general sense and to great extent on a rights issue. One problem with the 'unwashed plurality vote' here is the way it's been used to override fiscal responsibility. Have a bill that could never pass because it's fiscally irresponsible? Just put it on the ballot! They know they can sell it to the people and avoid that pesky vote in the legislature. We're in a terrible financial crisis, and it's certainly a contributing factor. In this situation, much of the impetus came from forces outside of the state who sought to make a stand in California and couldn't influence the legislators. After the scare tactics put on by the LDS church for ALL church members to involve themselves in the Prop 8 fight led to campaigns of misinformation and scare tactics, I'm not even sure I'd refer to the people as 'unwashed'.
But it wasn't about rights. It was about what the law chose to allow or not allow, which doesn't necessarily equate to fundamental rights. Governments make choices. When 7 million people express their choice (and another 4 million express a non-choice by not going to the polls), a democratic government has made a really cool point. I know that LDS pumped money into the Prop 8 fight. I'm terrifically certain that the anti-Prop 8 folks pumped just as much money in, but I have no way of proving it without taking several days off from work and dedicating myself to nothing but this thread. 2008 was a year where Democratic constituencies revolutionize political fundraising and social media. I just can't wrap my head around the undue influence point when 61% of the voters pulled the switch for Barack Obama, and 52% voted in favor of Prop 8. There's too much crossover. And, even if a healthy portion of those 52% DID cast their vote with religious underpinnings, they're allowed to do that. They don't make you write in a reason next to your vote. The financial issue is the only thing that catches me on this issue. One the one hand, allowing more marriage is, from a theoretical economic standpoint, an economic plus. A married couple spends more than two individuals - although, I've been trying hard to disprove that with regular frivolous purchases. The chief economist for the City of San Francisco had some really interesting testimony on this point. On the other hand, we have no real study pool. For any of the facts and evidence that get tossed around in this debate, there's an awful lot of speculative evidence. We just don't know what the effect of gay marriage will be, economically or otherwise, because there's no model to study. And I thought that was one of the more compelling arguments in the Prop 8 case - that the uncertainty was enough of a rational reason not to leap. Every study offered as evidence was, at best, hypothetical. But, most of all, I'm FOR the democratic lawmaking process involved when nearly 14 million voters speak; and I'm AGAINST the process that allows one man to create new rules to invalidate 7 million of those voices. Regardless of why they were saying what they were, about 40% of all registered voters in California were in sync on the end result. That's pretty remarkable.
If you held a vote to ask the people whether the state of California should write each and every resident of California a cheque for £10,000, would it be unreasonable of me to assume that the result would be an overwhelming "yes" despite the fact that you, me and pretty much every one of those voters with the slightest iota of intelligence and rational thought could figure out that it would be a catastrophically stupid thing for the state to do for all sorts of reasons? If we accept, as I think we must, that the result of said vote would be for the irrational and dangerous course of action despite the obvious logic dictating that it should be otherwise, then we must by definition accept that on some matters the decision of state and/or legislature is more important than the will of the people, so your insistence on placing the collective will of the people above all else is fundamentally flawed. We can debate on a case-by-case basis whether a decision should be placed in the hands of the people, but majority decision is not the be all and end all.
Each state has its own constitution that defines issues that are or are not appropriate for popular vote by initiative petition, but let's assume that your example would be allowed. Probably would. I don't assume that something like that would automatically win, because I don't assume that everyone considers only the check they'll receive. Many would consider the tax they'll be assessed to pay for all those checks. Half of the people would be taxed more than the $10,000 check to pay for the other half (who don't have the same taxable income) to receive it. I would count on that half figuring out their true self interest. And, if they didn't, then lesson learned, and they'll pay better attention next time they vote. But how is your example any better than giving the authority to a select few? In Bell, California - a lower-middle class city of 40,000 - the people recently found out that their city manager was making $800,000, their police chief $700,000, and each of their part-time city counselors $100,000 each. The city manager resigned, but he'll soon be pulling in $1 million a year in pension. For life! Likewise, the governments of New Jersey, California, and Illinois have each, for years, been awarding state employees unreasonable government pensions and those states are all now in budget crisis. So, it's somehow better to allow a legislature to mismanage budget issues? It's more efficient, for sure, because it wouldn't be practical to put an entire budget on a ballot each year. But it's doesn't per se give you a better result when we put "professional" representatives in charge of those decisions. Just a different brand of bad. So, I reject the premise that we need to save people from their own idiocy.
Well, to be completely fair, 3 out of 4 people are complete selfish and retarded dipshits. Look around this board....you are surrounded by three other posters. One of them is not a dipshit. That's a fairly high % of dipshitism going around. The divorce rate is so high because of how informal marriage has become. I don't think I need to go in detail to prove how this country clearly doesn't value marriage, but if you are curious of what I am talking about, just turn on your tv and scan through the guide and tell me how many TV shows you come across that have to do with poepl getting married. i.e. "The Bachelor" or my all time personal favorite "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" Back to the topic, I have no problem with this ruling .
Funny how there is a focus on why people voted for Prop 8. How about those who voted against it, what was there motivation? Being cool, trendy, "progressive" because other people tell them it is? How many of these people have any idea what the effect of such a transformation of the definition of the basic social construct in society will be?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the state always knows what's best, and there's no doubt that the will of the people needs to be represented as best possible where appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, though, the will of the people is represented through the people that they elect, and unless it's a matter that directly concerns and impacts upon each individual I don't believe that a vote should be held to determine public opinion on a specific issue as it will have the tendency to mobilise marginals on both sides, neither of whom is to be trusted. So, I'm not stating a premise that we're out to save people from their own idiocy, I'm stating that we need to save a free and libertarian society from the opinions of marginal zealots. In this case, having an impartial judge rule on a matter of personal freedoms and rights seems a far more sensible approach to me than giving religious fundamentalists and jackbooted anarchists a battleground on which to try and swing the middle ground towards their positions.
An Impartial Judge? Are you sure? Can anyone really be? Beyond that...Judiciary is a ROLE, not a final arbiter. Supreme Executive Authority derives from a mandate from the masses.....
And that's a real-live noble cause. Our Constitution has all sorts of neat tricks to do just that. However, in this case, I can't accept that 40% of the entire California electorate are marginal zealots. On the contrary. They're the mainstream majority, and they proved it with a vote. It won't always be that way. Flip the the scenario on its head. Most younger voters are in favor of gay marriage. Let's say that 10 years from now, it's the grumpy old geezers that are suing to impose their own values over the values of the majority. Would that be any more fair? Course not. It all depends on whose ox is being gored. That's why the fairest thing is always deferring to the democratic majority. The fool's response is to say something like, "If we did that, blacks would never have the right to vote," or some such thing. But you'd have to equate race with homosexuality, and most reasonable people wouldn't make that leap. Certainly no courts would. So, then, the argument turns on trying to be "fair" to a minority. But there are all sorts of minority groups that don't get afforded the "fairness," and it would be a fool's task to try. The fairest thing of all is to let a democratic process work it out.
I'm all for gay marriage, or whatever provides them with equal protection under the law. Two men or women marrying each other does not threaten MY marriage in any way, shape, or form. I also believe that gay parents can be every bit as good at parenting as straight. Hell, I know straight people that never should have been alloowed to give birth in the first place. Sexual orientation does not affect parenting at all, I wouldn't think. The argument that gay marriage will bring down marriage as an institution is bullshit, plain and simple. You get guys like Newt who rail against gay marriage, and huffs and puffs about the sanctity of marriage, and it's a joke. He left his sick wife for his mistress while she was in the hospital receiving cancer treatment. Is that how we define "the sanctity of marriage"? If two people love each other, shouldn't that be enough? Denying someone basic rights and equal protection under the law for any reason is wrong, and un-American. You don't have to agree with it morally (I don't), but as an American, I want all to have equal rights. This culture war that the right continues to wage makes me sick. Nobody has any right to tell others how they should live their life, providing no laws are broken. This used to be a core conservative value, and for some reason has been lost in the din coming out of the far right. Old school conservatism is dead for sure. Edmund Burke must be rolling in his grave these days...
What is "fair" about a church based in Utah spending $42 million dollars, half of which was in small towns with a traditionaly low turnout, enticing older people who normally do not vote to come out and fight the gays?
I'd argue that on a position like gay marriage, if only 40% voted against then the remaining 60% stated that either they're positively for it, or don't care one way or the other, and so it should be passed based upon the will of the people. After all, something that is viewed as either doing good or at the very least no harm has surely got a majority against a minority who view it negatively. I'm sure you can admit that there's logic to that position - except, of course, that that is complete rubbish, because if you start to take a non-vote as an opinion then we make a mockery of the entire democratic process. So which is more sensible - the result of a democratic vote which doesn't actually represent the logical position of the voting society as a whole, or the considered decision of an elected judge? (I'm assuming he's elected, although I may be showing my ignorance there.)
The political world is full of contradictions, betrayals and lies these days, from the right wing claiming their holy war in Iraq was at least in part waged to liberate women from tyrannical oppression whilst simultaneously arguing against abortion based upon religious beliefs, to the left wing handing over billions of public dollars to keep global banking corporations in clover. Few politicians represent their beliefs these days, instead they represent whatever they think people want them to represent, and in the struggle for the lifeblood of media air time they take increasingly outlandish and unpleasant positions on both extremities of the political spectrum. America and the world needs some truly great statesmen again, but they're being marginalised by the preference for talking heads and soundbites. It's a depressing state of affairs.
Phony issue. What about the motives of people who were funding opposition to Prop 8? Self serving in many cases, I would bet, homosexuals who want to advance the gay agenda - that's okay? Why is that better?
