9th Circuit upholds Prop 8 ruling, step closer to implementing the fabulous agenda!

[Formaldehyde]

I can't wait for freedom spirituals to become popular in some white fundamentalist churches.


Link to video.

 

[El_Machinae]

Current marriage policy in most places is affirmative action for straights.

That's a new one! I quite like it. A double-dig.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Current marriage policy in most places is affirmative action for straights.

He shoots, he scores!

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Apparently the people of California are too stupid to decide on their own laws.

 

[Leonel]

Apparently the people of California are too stupid to decide on their own laws.

We in the Pacific Northwest have known this for a long time. It's too late for Arizona and Nevada though...

 

[LucyDuke]

Apparently the people of California are too stupid to decide on their own laws.

You make that sound like news or something.

 

[Formaldehyde]

After California has proved over and over again that voters are the last people who should decide what to do on important matters, we probably do need a constitutional amendment that makes propositions illegal.

Here's a few of them:

http://abe.epton.org/2009/05/why-were-in-this-mess-stupid-california.html

Prop 16 (1922)
Regulated chiropractors. A worthy goal, sure, but why is this in the state Constitution? (Because of this proposition, future changes to chiropractor regulation have to be run past the voters first, which is kind of unwieldy for such a specialized profession.)

Prop 13 (1978)
This is one of the big ones: Reduces and limits the property tax, and requires a 2/3 vote in the Legislature to increase any taxes. Why doesn't California have any money? Pretty much, because of this proposition. An all-time bad idea.

Prop 4 (1979)
Another big, stupid legacy of the anti-tax movement. This one limited state expenditures to only slightly above what they were the previous year, which sounds kind of reasonable but has the practical effect of choking off spending for important programs and enshrining ugly budget battles in the state Constitution.

Prop 38 (1984)
Called for voting materials to be in English only. Because the last thing we want our citizens to be able to do is to understand who or what they're voting for.

Prop 63 (1986)
Designates English as the official language, and allows citizens to sue state or local governments if they diminish or ignore "the role of English as the common language of the State of California."

Prop 163 (1992)
In part, exempted candy, snack foods and bottled water from state and local sales tax. So that our children can finally have access to the abundant supply of Little Debby snack cakes that our soldiers have fought and died for! Seriously, it's not like there was about to be an obesity epidemic or anything. Come on, 1992, help us out a bit.

Prop 187 (1994)
Prevented illegal immigrants from receiving public services. Glad to see the American Dream is alive and well!

Prop 184 (1996)
Three strikes and you're out! Or, in jail for life. Because nothing demonstrates the seriousness with which we take criminal justice better than applying arbitrary baseball rules to determining punishment.

Props 195 and 196 (1996)
Made 4 more types of murder eligible for the death penalty. I guess I just have a philosophical objection to a state, which has to hold a referendum whenever chiropractor license renewal dates need to be changed, having the power to kill its citizens.

Prop 6 (1998)
Ban on eating horses. Because we the people find horses too cute to be eaten?

Prop 8 (2008)
Prevented same-sex couples from marrying. At last! Marriages are safe, once again!

California Propositions Are a Bankrupt Idea

Quite a few years back, I had a debate with a friend. I disliked California's Proposition system, he thought it was great.

I am here to proclaim victory in the debate.

The Proposition System in California, while noble in theory, is an ill-thought out disaster. Somewhat like New Coke, the Edsel and Viet Nam. Miserable failure was the only likely outcome.

It was based on the premise of full-participation democracy of an informed citizenry, but even the Founding Fathers understood that that had its limits. America is not a democracy, it's a representative democracy. This is the concept that most people just want to know where the On switch is for their computer, not how electronics works. When it comes to laws, just pass the things, and if we don't like them, we'll vote you out.

However poorly one thinks of politicians, the Proposition System is worse. It starts with the faulty premise that the voting public is going to willingly study a thick guidebook. The voting public didn't willingly study even thin guidebooks when they were in high school and required to. Instead, with propositions, they turn to watching 30-second TV ads to learn what the laws are about.

Watching 30-second TV ads to learn what a law is about is like reading a fortune cookie and believing that you now understand Eastern Philosophy.

When you let politicians do what you elected them to do - for all the good and ill - at least you are getting 100% of the electorate represented in the results. And if you don't like those results, you can vote your officials out. But with the Proposition System, a mere quarter of the public is at times deciding how the state should be run. Based on watching 30-second TV ads. With no accountability.

How can anyone be shocked to discover that people vote for things they like, vote against paying taxes - and a $26.3 billion deficit is created because a near-impossible two-thirds supermajority is needed to fix things?! And you throw out your leader to bring in an movie actor with no political experience to get you out of the mess.

This is no way to run a democracy.

In California, majority doesn't rule. It's the tyranny of the minority, but worse it's too often the tyranny of the irrational. The California Proposition System may have begun with a noble intent, but it was ill-conceived, and has become selfish, greedy, mindless, unworkable and a disaster.

There is only one proposition worthy of having on the ballot and voting for. A proposition that would get rid of the California Proposition System.

 

[Arakhor]

Apparently the people of California are too stupid to decide on their own laws.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if Prop 8 had been about regulating something you agreed with, you'd be all for the Supreme Court striking it down.

 

[illram]

Apparently the people of California are too stupid to decide on their own laws.

It's not that we're too stupid, it is that we are too preoccupied with our lives to bother informing ourselves on what we vote for, assuming we even bother to vote at all. In theory a direct democracy model is nice, but in practice it is just not feasible for a lot of things. I think on a local level it makes more sense than on a huge state-wide scale, especially considering we are bigger than a lot of countries.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, it makes sense in places like Switzerland..

But as soon as you start using the model to use the majority to oppress a minority.. that's when I start having a problem with a system like that

 

[kramerfan86]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if Prop 8 had been about regulating something you agreed with, you'd be all for the Supreme Court striking it down.

Nah Im sure if California ever passed a proposition guaranteeing the right to an abortion he was respect the voter's wishes.

 

[Antilogic]

What is really revealing is the notion that 5 ultraconservative appointees by 3 Republican presidents are the only reason the Supreme Court again "understands" similar discrimination.

In Justice Kennedy's defense, he's not as ultraconservative as Justices Scalia or Thomas. Or Justice Alito.

Current marriage policy in most places is affirmative action for straights.

...and this is why I'm making a subscription post to this thread.

 

[Formaldehyde]

In Justice Kennedy's defense, he's not as ultraconservative as Justices Scalia or Thomas. Or Justice Alito.

No, he's just the justice who typically decides these 5-4 decisions along with Roberts.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, it makes sense in places like Switzerland..

But as soon as you start using the model to use the majority to oppress a minority.. that's when I start having a problem with a system like that

Now guess what happens in Switzerland ...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Someone makes a watch.

 

[civ_king]

Nah Im sure if California ever passed a proposition guaranteeing the right to an abortion he was respect the voter's wishes.

I'm in California and I would start gather votes to get a proposition on the ballot to repeal it.

Now guess what happens in Switzerland ...

Switzerland is a nice neutral country that is very tolerant and civilized so it would never do anything like ban burqas or minarets

 

[schlaufuchs]

I'm in California and I would start gather votes to get a proposition on the ballot to repeal it.

yes please!

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Nah Im sure if California ever passed a proposition guaranteeing the right to an abortion he was respect the voter's wishes.

That would be like voting on whether murder should be legal, when human life is in the balance, things should be taken much more seriously.

Switzerland is a nice neutral country that is very tolerant and civilized so it would never do anything like ban burqas or minarets

Good one

 

[schlaufuchs]

Good one

You do realize that his post is ran directly contrary to the opinions you have been asserting for basically this entire thread, right? Kentucky education system indeed.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

You do realize that his post is ran directly contrary to the opinions you have been asserting for basically this entire thread, right? Kentucky education system indeed.

When did I ever say hat I wanted to ban Burqas or minarets?