California Propositions Thread

[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."

[cannonia]

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."

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.

[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.

[platypeanArchcow]

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.

Hm.  I see where you're coming from, sort of.  You're saying that I'm not being discriminated against because I can still marry a woman, just like all other males.  But really, marriage is the right of two people to get married to each other -- and limiting it to heterosexual couples is gender discrimination against the pair.  So the map People --> PossibleMarriages is permutation-invariant, but the map People x People --> PossibleMarriages is not.

I should talk about politics in terms of category theory more often.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think I'm going to vote for 1,2,3, and 5, and no on the rest.

[Хahar 🤔]

Legislature should decide.

Sums up my feelings on almost all of these. But the Founding Fathers of California decided on a crappy half-Switzerland, for reasons I cannot percieve.

And the idea of Prop 11 isn't bad, but the way it's done is hideous. Plus, I like having legislators who represent my political beliefs, even if it requires gerrymandering.

[platypeanArchcow]

Legislature should decide.

Sums up my feelings on almost all of these. But the Founding Fathers of California decided on a crappy half-Switzerland, for reasons I cannot percieve.

And the idea of Prop 11 isn't bad, but the way it's done is hideous. Plus, I like having legislators who represent my political beliefs, even if it requires gerrymandering.

The map for prop 11 results defies any sort of rhyme or reason:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=11&tab=0&fnum=0

Seriously, can anyone explain this?  It looks like the very liberal (SF, Humboldt, Santa Cruz) were more likely to vote against it, and the partisan republicans (OC and thereabouts) for, but beyond that, what the hell is going on in this map?

[Хahar 🤔]

Legislature should decide.

Sums up my feelings on almost all of these. But the Founding Fathers of California decided on a crappy half-Switzerland, for reasons I cannot percieve.

And the idea of Prop 11 isn't bad, but the way it's done is hideous. Plus, I like having legislators who represent my political beliefs, even if it requires gerrymandering.

The map for prop 11 results defies any sort of rhyme or reason:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=11&tab=0&fnum=0

Seriously, can anyone explain this?  It looks like the very liberal (SF, Humboldt, Santa Cruz) were more likely to vote against it, and the partisan republicans (OC and thereabouts) for, but beyond that, what the hell is going on in this map?

It resembles a map from the 1960s.