|
Two other things that got overlooked: Gays & Drugs
|
View this Thread in Original format
| HardTranceProd |
In the heat of yesterday's presidential election, there were two other things that went unnoticed but are very interesting.
One is, the state of California has voted to officially ban gay marriage. This is the state that was supposedly at the forefront of progressive thinking, especially with respect to gays! This decision is very surprising to me, not only as a liberal, but also simply as someone who's been observing CA politics.
The other is, possession of small amounts of marijuana is no longer criminal in Massachusetts! You can get a small fine and maybe have it taken away, but it's decriminalized now.
This is a tale of the two most liberal states in America: one has moved further in the liberal direction, the other is regressing into conservative territory. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Massachusetts is the most socially progressive state my opinion. Bravo for them. |
|
|
| josh4 |
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and friends grossly underestimated the opposition for gay marriage. From the start they were out funded and out organized by the opposition. They didn't figure out until it was too late they should be targeting the black community which tends to be socially conservative. Go figure that turned out to be the largest segment to vote for the ban, whites were largely against one. Having the issue in an election with the first black candidate didn't help either. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and friends grossly underestimated the opposition for gay marriage. From the start they were out funded and out organized by the opposition. They didn't figure out until it was too late they should be targeting the black community which tends to be socially conservative. Go figure that turned out to be the largest segment to vote for the ban, whites were largely against one. Having the issue in an election with the first black candidate didn't help either. |
It is tragic in that sense.
We employ ourselves into slavery without even realizing it, apparently. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
our due process case law has trended in the direction of expansive rights. i imagine gay marriage will be protected as soon as there is a liberal majority on the court. unfortunately the liberals are the old bunch on the bench. Ginsburg and stevens are probably out during obama's term, but it wouldn't be a bad thing if all the liberal justices retired so that obama could insert some liberal youth. it's unfotunate that alito, roberts, and thomas are the youngest on the bench; each is likely to have another 20 years. scalia and kennedy are both 72 years old, which means they likely have about 10 years. i only hope a democrat is in office when they retire.
as for marijuana, it doesn't make sense to criminalize its personal consumption. i think we should legalize its use, like liquor, and tax the out of it, on the production and consumption sides. it's really a no-brainer. just imagine the reduction in cost of production if it could be produced on a mass scale. the reduction in its cost could be filled by taxes. My guess is that in excess of 75% of the cost of marijuana results from three things: 1) the risk associated with producing it, 2) the cost of covertly transporting the drug, and 3) an increase in price to recover the confiscation of other supplies. All three of those drivers would be eliminated and could be filled by tax costs. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | | We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. |
Clearly, gays have a right to be married if they want. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Clearly, gays have a right to be married if they want. |
stop quoting the declaration of independence; it has no legal significance.
EDIT: it's also not that clear, if it was, this wouldn't be an issue. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| Three things : Unlimited Abortions... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
stop quoting the declaration of independence; it has no legal significance.
EDIT: it's also not that clear, if it was, this wouldn't be an issue. |
No I won't. Gays don't have a legal right to marry. They have a NATURAL RIGHT to marry. The law should reflect that. The legal right to marry is what they are fighting for. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
No I won't. Gays don't have a legal right to marry. They have a NATURAL RIGHT to marry. The law should reflect that. The legal right to marry is what they are fighting for. |
i don't disagree, however, quoting the declaration of independence isn't a strong argument considering 1) the declaration of independence isn't a legally significant document, 2) it was signed prior to the US becoming a nation, 3) the constitution determines these matters, and 4) its purpose was to declare independence from britian, not to give rights to people of a yet to be formed country. try the equal protection clause or the due process clause for stronger arguments (the due process clause has been used historically to expand civil rights).
you appear clueless when you quote the declaration of independence. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Clearly, gays have a right to be married if they want. |
if its legal justification you're trying argue, clearly you have no idea what constitutes a legally binding document...again |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
if its legal justification you're trying argue, clearly you have no idea what constitutes a legally binding document...again |
Conveniently missing the point again?
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Gays don't have a legal right to marry. They have a NATURAL RIGHT to marry. The law should reflect that. The legal right to marry is what they are fighting for. |
|
|
|
|
|
