California Propositions Thread

[Alcon]

Proposition 2 is really going to confuse stoned people.

[Alcon]

Proposition 8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
YES, though I might consider switching.

Why?  Care to elaborate?

I don't think that the government should be involved in marriage at all. Since this proposition says that the State of California will not recognize homosexual marriage, I support it. If the measure said that recognition of same-sex marriage shall be prohibited, I would be against it.

Don't you think that, if the status quo is maintained (as it will be), it should be an equal status quo?

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

[Alcon]

If some people are going to be shot in the back of the head, wouldn't it be best for everyone to be shot in the back of the head? </sarcasm>. I should point out that I lean a little to the right on social issues.

That analogy doesn't really make sense unless people desire equality in being shot in the head.

The better analogy is, if you think ice cream isn't healthy for your kids, but the neighbors' kids get it and your kids feel deprived, do you let them indulge?  Except replace ice cream with something related to civil rights equality.

I know you lean right on social issues, but this isn't a matter of left or right.  The argument I'm making is panideological.

[Alcon]

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

Or the idea of "group rights" in general.

So, say, you opposed public transportation being funded by the government.  You'd support an initiative to keep blacks off public transportation, just because it would be less ridership?  It would be more important to score points on a political issue that will never 'win' than to right a blatant form of societal discrimination?

I'm totally sympathetic to the "government out of marriage" view, I agree with it, but dude be practical.  You know no one is going to call this passing a win for our view.  You know exactly the kind of ideology that "wins" from this.

I have trouble believing that even the most adamant civil libertarian sees a vain stand for ideological purity as more important than righting society-approved bigotry.

[Alcon]

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

Or the idea of "group rights" in general.

So, say, you opposed public transportation being funded by the government.  You'd support an initiative to keep blacks off public transportation, just because it would be less ridership?  It would be more important to score points on a political issue that will never 'win' than to right a blatant form of societal discrimination?

Nope, never said anything like that.

Then you'll explain to me what the distinction is.  Why is the example I gave unacceptable, but denying equal marital rights to gays perfectly fine?  In both instances, you'd be doing the same thing:  revoking a right, and re-enforcing discrimination, to move toward an ideological goal that isn't on the horizon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not of that view either.

I'm glad, but that doesn't take away my original point:  this is ineffective ideological purism vs. an actual move away from governmentally-enforced bigotry.  And a vote of "yes" gives that view, not ours, the victory.

[Alcon]

Marriage is an institution based on practical, not ideological concerns.  Your view of it as bigoted treats homosexuals as a group rather than as individuals.  I have the same concerns about this as about affirmative action.  Contrast those to laws that prohibit discrimination against an individual.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument.  How are they being less discriminated-against as individuals?

How are you relating affirmative action, here?  Are you arguing that equality is not desirable, because forcing equality (affirmative action) is bad?  I don't think that analogy makes any sense either, unless your objection to affirmative action is something other than the standard "it's not meritocratic."

[Alcon]

They are both rights/benefits conferred by group status.  California marriage law before the court decision treated individuals identically, regardless of member ship in any particular group.

OK, I'm sorry, but you may be losing me.

You point out that both gay marriage and affirmative action are rights conferred by group status.  I agree -- how could I not?  They are.  So is heterosexual marriage.  So are voting rights.  So are certain tax breaks.  Do you have an inherent moral objection to rights being granted based on group status?

I would assume your objection to affirmative action is that it is not meritocratic and that it is discriminatory, not that it affects people because they fit into a certain group.  In fact, your argument seems to favor a "No" vote on Prop. 8.  A "Yes" vote is a vote to discriminate marital rights based on sexual orientation.  It does not eliminate these group rights, just creates an arbitrary exception based on bigotry.  A "No" vote eliminates this arbitrary exception, and while it may not eliminate government involvement in marriage, neither does a "yes" vote.  So, where's the balance?  Think about my bus example again.

I realize that it increases the number of instances in which government is involved in marriage.  But, again, how far are you willing to extend bigoted inequality in the name of a cause that won't come to be?  I want the government out of marriage too, but I also realize a "yes" vote would practically be a regression without any progress on separating politics and marriage.  You already said, with the bus example, that you would draw a line and err on the side of practicality.  Where's the difference?  Ask yourself, is there one?  I don't think so.