Let's talk politics: Propositions

joolz425

I'm very concerned about all the bonds that are on this ballot.That's a WHOLE lotta money.  I tend to vote fiscally conservative. Yes to Prop 2 & 9, No on 4, rest I am still undecided on, can't give unequivocal decision just yet. Having the hardest time with Prop 8. 

Let's hear your concerns, I'd like to hear both sides.

princess_shelly

I need to read them more in depth so I can better understand them.?

Emily227

Do you have a website that has any summaries? I need to read up on them too. The only ones I am familiar on is 2 and 8 (I think)---the animal cage one and gay marriage. Additionally, I've been hearing negative things on the renewable energy bill---that it's not feasible. But again, I need to do more research. I don't have much time left!

insominac

Regarding Prop 8

I'm actually very active with the NO on Prop 8 campaign, and have been campaigning at the West Hollywood offices for the past few weeks. 

What Prop 8 Says (and what will be on the ballot):

"Proposition 8:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.

On August 8, 2008 Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that the Attorney General?s Title and Summary of Proposition 8 is accurate."

My thoughts on the matter:

Regardless of whether you support the idea of same-sex marriage, I believe that it is morally wrong to single out a group of people in the constitution treat them unfairly. 

I find the idea of an amendment to my state's constitution that basically discriminates against a group of people incredibly distasteful.  I've always thought of Constitutions as places to safeguard and protect individual rights, not to remove them.  

I'm not a fan of government in our personal lives - Prop 8 is completely unnecessary.   Who am I to tell a loving and committed couple that they can't have the same priviledges and rights that I have, just because they have a same-sex partner?

I don't subscribe to the idea that domestic partnerships are good enough.  Marriage automatically affords over a thousand federal rights and various state rights that simply aren't covered with domestic partnerships.

Here's an excerpt from the National Center for Lesbian Rights that provides more detail:

http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_marriage_why

"While some rights can be obtained, at least partially, through private agreements or other legal procedures (which require legal guidance and can be prohibitively expensive), most of the protections provided through marriage simply cannot be replicated in any other way. Federal benefits unavailable to unmarried couples include (but are not limited to) protections under the Family Medical Leave Act; family and death benefits through social security and pension plans (most of which provide benefits only to legal spouses); the ability to have foreign spouses immigrate to the U.S.; worker's compensation surviving spouse protections; and numerous tax benefits, including tax breaks for couples raising children."

Marriage conveys dignity and respect to unions.  Gay and lesbian folks deserve that just as much as hetero folks do.  No one dreams of getting domestic partnerized.  They want to get married.

It can be a tough road to be gay in this country, particularly when growing up (they are bullied, have higher drop out levels, often suffer from poor mental health, etc.).  The last thing I want a gay teen is to look at the amended Constitution and feel even more stigmatized.

 

A couple of the issues raised by people who want to eliminate same sex marriage:

1. Churches will be forced to marry gays/lesbians.  They'll lose their tax status.  This isn't true.  The current CA Supreme Court decision regarding marriage specifically says ?no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.? If you think about it, several churches have certain requirements that people have to meet to marry, and that's not a problem.  There are a growing number religious officials that would marry a lesbian couple (I'm thinking Unitarian Universalists), and if they want to do so, great.

2.  Children will learn about gay marriage in school.  Another falsehood.  Without penalty, parents can opt their children out of any lessons regarding health and family issues that they don't agree with.

 

Finally, this is a deeply personal issue for me.  I have several close friends and one immediate family member who are gay.   Forty years ago, it took "activist judges" to rule that states could not prevent interracial couples from marrying.  I view the fight for gay rights in the next civil rights movement.

 

This is probably much more than you wanted to know, lol, but if you (or anyone) wants to talk about this in any more detail, feel free to send me an email: nest.insomniac at gmail dot com 

 

joolz425

I'm all for gay civil unions, benefits, and rights, but I am still unsure about the definition of marriage aspect. I also agree with you that it should not be a constitutional amendment, so I guess my vote is NO but yes to civil unions with all the rights and benefits that come if you were married.