 |
|
|
|
 |
progressiveMOJO
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Black Rock City
|
|
|
anyone who says they've lost faith isn't too bright. Keep in mind that Proposition 22 from the 2000 elections passed by a 61% majority and Prop 8 only passed by 53%. That's rapid progress when you consider how long social changes take in this country.
|
|
Nov-05-2008 17:44
|
|
|
 |
 |
pnutttty
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by progressiveMOJO
anyone who says they've lost faith isn't too bright. Keep in mind that Proposition 22 from the 2000 elections passed by a 61% majority and Prop 8 only passed by 53%. That's rapid progress when you consider how long social changes take in this country. |
i like to think that i am bright... but please understand that this prop DIRECTLY affects me. i do understand that that we have moved forward since the last election, but then again, we still lost.
it was painful to see on tv last night when folks at the yes on prop 8 campaign cheering... cheering when rights have been taken away.
|
|
Nov-05-2008 18:14
|
|
|
 |
 |
CaptKirk
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jun 2007
Location: Monkeytown, CA
|
|
|
Quite honestly.....I think the fact that this prop got so much attention is what defeated it. I wish there would have been such a debate on props 7 or 10. Bet ya nearly everyone you asked could tell you what prop 8 was about while not knowing a single thing about the other 11 props. I would have really liked to see us debate the merit of and seek clarification on the wording of 7 and 10 - two propositions with wide-ranging importance yet convoluted wording.
I voted NO but in reality, banning same sex marriage doesn't really affect the freedom of two people, regardless of gender, from carrying on a committed, loving relationship. All it really does is prevent gay couples from acquiring "official" recognition under the law and protect the few remaining employer-based insurance policies that do not already recognize same-sex spouses from insuring those spouses. We'll soon see the end of employer-based health insurance anyways. Many industries have already eliminated employer-based insurance either through bargining or job deployment. At one point, someone on here introduced the idea of discrimination against single people. When you research unionized, female-dominated professions such as teaching, you will find that many have bargined away their health insurance in favor of higher pay. Why? Because many married woman teachers are already covered under their spouse's insurance. The result is married women in teaching whom are able to keep that extra salary while married men and single teachers are being forced to invest any increased salary plus more back into their health coverage.
In any case, the focus of this proposition should have been on the importance of "NOT" ammending the CA constitution to define the sanctity of marriage between two people or appease special-interest groups rather than gay-rights, which is yet another special-interest force in the eyes of many California citizens.
|
|
Nov-05-2008 18:20
|
|
|
 |
 |
fury
Supreme tokeaddict
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Los Angeles
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by pnutttty
it was painful to see on tv last night when folks at the yes on prop 8 campaign cheering... cheering when rights have been taken away. |
Yep, that was a disgusting sight to see.
|
|
Nov-05-2008 18:30
|
|
|
 |
 |
CaptKirk
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jun 2007
Location: Monkeytown, CA
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
It is kinda hard to give it less attention when the Mormon church alone is the single largest sponsor of the yes on 8 campaign. |
By no means would I like to see it get "less attention". Would have just liked to see the other props get SOME attention from the citizenry. For that matter, I really don't think this was a result of campaigning by the Mormon church but rather the average citizen's comfort level with same-sex unions and/or opposition to gay-rights advocacy. Least we forget the majority or citizenry organizing in this country takes place in the churches regardless of denomination. I'm sure the Catholic church played just as important role, particularly here in California.
My point is more one of symantics. This proposition would have stood more of a chance of being defeated had the argument been more about opposing an ammendment to the constitution rather than advocating the recognition of same-sex marriage. Saying "NO" in an argument to allow the constitution remain unchanged would likely sit much easier in the moral conscience of the average Californian as opposed to saying "NO" in an argument to recognize same-sex marriage. This was played out as a gay-rights issue more than an issue of ammending the constitution with a definition of a "societal norm". This was not about gay-rights. This was about introducing specific definitions of any kind into the Constitution. If this were a proposition to define what constitutes an acceptable "religion", "church", "school", "family", or any other institution, it would have more likely been defeated because people are aware of the repercussions of injecting strict definitions into the documents that govern our personal freedoms.
|
|
Nov-05-2008 19:30
|
|
|
 |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|