Proposition 8 in California, 2008 page 49

1207 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Should the majority be capable of voting to allow discrimination of the minority?

This is an interesting question for jhco. Since jhco stated, “I think when a majority of the people vote to pass legislation….it should stand.”, I would state, should the same apply to all things?

For instance, if most people in California wanted to vote to outlaw guns, should it pass (because the people have spoken)? If not, why not?

I know you don’t hold the citizens of California themselves in high regard, but I would wonder why you are defending them and their decision-making capabilities on this particular point. It feels kind of like a fair-weather friendship.

What is to answer? Prop 8 was brought to the people for a vote and they voted to make it law. Yes, it should stand. The gays could bring forth their own bill and use the legislative process as such, but they have seen the public opinion. Thus they feel the need to usurp this legislation through the courts knowing the public has spoken.

California has and does limit gun ownership in California. They don’t bring it to the people for a vote, they do it behind the scenes. I would love to see them bring it to a vote.

I don’t dislike all Californians. The problem I have had with Californians stems to a period several years ago when many California residents fled the state. They settled in several states and spent a lot of money. This increased the goods of essentials, like housing. But they didn’t stop there. They left California because of politics and when they got to their new states, went to work on changing those laws to match California,s laws. You think they have a bad name in your state, you should see how Oregon feels about them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

California has and does limit gun ownership in California. They don’t bring it to the people for a vote, they do it behind the scenes. I would love to see them bring it to a vote.

I have contacts in California politics; from what I understand, some of the gun laws did come to a vote, and they passed. The NRA was there, and whatever other organization would lobby in favor of the gun laws, and more often than not, they passed. It looked like it was what the people wanted, as the process was before the state assembly and fairly transparent.

The first question: If they voted to outlaw all guns, would that be OK with you? was a rhetorical one, because it will never happen, but it would make you think about how you would feel if “the people” spoke, and it was against an issue that is near and dear to you.

You think they have a bad name in your state, you should see how Oregon feels about them.

I was afraid of that, but they don’t seem to have a bad name in my state. Actually, my state seems to be comprised of about 1/2 Californians, so the whole self-loathing thing wouldn’t really work. Every time I’ve told someone I’m from California, they’ve usually displayed anywhere from neutral (“Oh, OK.”) to polite interest (“Really? I bet they have a lot to do there.”). I’ve met some people here who are actually moving westward in search of a more exciting life.

 
Flag Post

Well Twilight, it seems the people spoke. If they were willing to vote to limit their gun freedoms, it’s how it should be.

Yes, I know. Texans in your state used to be the bad guys, but Californians made them good guys. Most of the people I know in my area would be neutral to sighs. :) Right now, excitement is not what people are looking for when they move, they are trying to find work.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:


Yes, I know. Texans in your state used to be the bad guys, but Californians made them good guys.

What? Do you mean Californians > Texans?

Most of the people I know in my area would be neutral to sighs. :) Right now, excitement is not what people are looking for when they move, they are trying to find work.

Some of the younger people I’ve met stop and ask me about California. Maybe it makes no difference where they go to school but they seem to think it’s golden and want to be where the action is. It is a beautiful state.

 
Flag Post

Yes, but the Texans are really happy about it. They spent years in that slot, LOL.

I have heard how beautiful it is out there. There is a lot of history as well. Someday maybe I will get to see it. I would like to see Washington, too. A friend of mine just got back from Texas and he said it really looked bad down there. It looked all shriveled up. My brother said when he drove a truck cross-country the most beautiful state he ever saw was Idaho. I can’t even imagine that.

 
Flag Post

I still don’t understand why it should be allowed to vote for limiting other people’s freedoms.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

What is to answer?

Unfortunately, YOU don’t even know the question.

Prop 8 was brought to the people for a vote and they voted to make it law.

Yes, they did vote to make it a “law” that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Yes, it should stand.
WHY? Because it aligns w/ YOUR BIGOTED idololgy concerning Gays? AND,,,,NO, it shall NOT STAND. Upon reaching the Supreme Court….it will be struck down….AS IT WELL SHOULD BE.

The gays could bring forth their own bill and use the legislative process as such,

WHAT FUCKINGLEGISLATION”? In AMERICA, one doesn’t need legislation to obtain//retain their RIGHTS. Our Constitution already does that.

but they have seen the public opinion

SO?…. So what? Since when,, IN AMERICA—a Republic—under our CONSTITUTION,, does “public opinion” mean shit when it comes to Constitutional RIGHTS? This is why the Founding Fathers made the Constitution—The LAW of the Land—hard to change. Thus negating the foolishness of “popular opinion” of whim.

Thus they feel the need to usurp this legislation through the courts knowing the public has spoken.

After reading the above, DO YOU SERIOUSLY think anyone isn’t laughing at THAT fool statement?

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I still don’t understand why it should be allowed to vote for limiting other people’s freedoms.

DR, it’s NOT “allowed”. At least if ya’re thinking along the lines of “permited”. Bigoted idiots can VOTE and pass legislation that limits ppl’s rights. BUT, upon being contested in Court…..such “laws” are struck down as being UNconstitutional.

jhco knows this (at least he SHOULD), but his bigotry about Gays obviously “allows” him this distortion of facts he is sooooo “proud” of touting.