I am not personally opposed to gay marriage. It seems pointless to forbid such a thing, but I do have some comments for those who are enthusiastic about it
( Read more... )
Hey, do you live in Provincetown? I just saw a road sign for there the other day... in Bishop, CA, at the other end of the 6, advertising the fact that it was 3205 miles away.
No, but I've been there. It is a pretty tourist-trap town with a nice beach. It has a large, openly gay, community. No public nudity though, Massachusetts is still quite puritanical.
A single person can set up a proxy who is not married or related to them. I'm it.
Clearly the government is in the fostering marriage business. They must want this. I suppose the most likely reason is social stability. Ergo, as a social good, they are advancing perks. Notice that the benefits don't come out of gov't coffers.
Right. Single people can set up a health care proxy, as can gay people, and name whomever they want. Its just that if they don't have such an arrangement in advance, the gay partner is not the default health-care proxy.
Hey, our local TV new idiots reported last night, "IF CA upholds prop8, it will be the first time a group of people has been taken out of a constitution". I had to keep rewinding to make sure I heard it right - still makes no sense.
I'm not sure all states recognize a health care proxy. Also what happens if blood relatives make a fuss? The Schiavo case didn't even involve gays and politicians still wanted to interfere. I think we need an emphasis on individual rights not gay rights. Equal protection has always been open to interpretation. California doesn't recognize the right of people with no drivers license to equal use of the roads. Is that a constitutional violation? Well yes, but very few people on either side of Proposition 8 would agree with that.
I left out taxes because that is a whole other issue ;) As for pensions carrying on after the main breadwinner dies. This is perfectly OK as long as the breadwinner paid for that provision in advance. Not OK if single people had to pay the same amount.
California's constitution puts the state inherently in a ridiculous situation; it can be changed by 50.00001% of the voters, then changed back the next time if .00002% change their minds. So the state Supreme Court created a rule that "fundamental changes" to the constitution can't be made by mere "amendments," which is nonsense but perhaps a necessary fiction.
But applying that rule in this case wouldn't have made sense. California has no long history of allowing same-sex marriage. Even the claim that California has a fundamental and unchangeable principle of equal rights in its constitution is false to history; the original constitution had some nasty provisions against Chinese immigrants.
I would have preferred a different outcome, but did not want it achieved by letting the state Supreme Court decide it can throw out amendments it doesn't like. So the court made the right decision.
The ballot proposition system in California is itself ridiculous. Currently, with tax revenues down, the state legislature isn't allowed to cut many kinds of spending that are obligated by previously approved ballot propositions.
Comments 11
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Clearly the government is in the fostering marriage business. They must want this. I suppose the most likely reason is social stability. Ergo, as a social good, they are advancing perks. Notice that the benefits don't come out of gov't coffers.
Reply
Hey, our local TV new idiots reported last night, "IF CA upholds prop8, it will be the first time a group of people has been taken out of a constitution". I had to keep rewinding to make sure I heard it right - still makes no sense.
Reply
Equal protection has always been open to interpretation. California doesn't recognize the right of people with no drivers license to equal use of the roads. Is that a constitutional violation? Well yes, but very few people on either side of Proposition 8 would agree with that.
Reply
Reply
As for pensions carrying on after the main breadwinner dies. This is perfectly OK as long as the breadwinner paid for that provision in advance. Not OK if single people had to pay the same amount.
Reply
But applying that rule in this case wouldn't have made sense. California has no long history of allowing same-sex marriage. Even the claim that California has a fundamental and unchangeable principle of equal rights in its constitution is false to history; the original constitution had some nasty provisions against Chinese immigrants.
I would have preferred a different outcome, but did not want it achieved by letting the state Supreme Court decide it can throw out amendments it doesn't like. So the court made the right decision.
Reply
Democracy run amok ...
Reply
Leave a comment