Nov 4 State Propositions! (taxes, prices, safety)

[the one]

so then why even vote for it?

if it makes no difference, why jeapordize the rights of those who do have something at stake? why not a simple no vote, or an abstain to vote? why a yes? a yes is definetly in favor of it.

when props come up that i am uncertain or uneasy about i vote NO. most times they come back in some incarnation. a yes vote could be the deciding vote here.

if you are pro gay, you would vote no, or not vote on this at all.

a yes vote IS ANTI GAYS.

did you know that california desegregated education before the feds did? should the family in santa ana have waited till the rest of the country was on board? and you know the rest of the country was still reluctant as evidenced by the riots at all those schools.
should cali also waited for antimiscegenation laws to be federal in order to allow inter racial marriage?
even if it is not on the fed level, this can make a case for it being federal. you have to start somewhere.
A yes vote here would set the gays back. why would you limit them?

just vote no or dont vote at all because your argument that it wont be federally recognized seems like a guise for intolerance.

if you vote yes, then have the guts to give a real reason as to why you are voting yes.

your reason holds no water.

NO ON 4
NO ON 6
NO ON 8
and im still figuring the rest out.

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Happ and wehotex, as I state in my original posting on the topic I see no logical basis for gay marriage in California because it is irrelevant at the federal level.

You cannot file a joint federal tax return, and cannot have spousal social security benefits.

It also isn't recognized as legitimate in other states, so all one has to do to negate the relationship is abandon living in California and "poof" the obligation no longer exists.


Protections, Benefits, and Responsibilities of Marriage

Federal legislation would give gay couples equality in Social Security  | News | Advocate.com

[LASam]

Originally Posted by the one

NO ON 4

Why the "No" on 4? I'm trying to understand why people don't think parents have a right to know what is going on in their children's lives. I'm having a hard time with that.

[the one]

Originally Posted by LASam

Why the "No" on 4? I'm trying to understand why people don't think parents have a right to know what is going on in their children's lives. I'm having a hard time with that.

i just dont think its right yet. i do feel that this is a choice young women should make, with the guidance of a counselor or trusted individual. i think it needs to include some for of counseling attached to it. some follow up.

when this first came about the public saw how bad a situation could be for those young women in abusive homes. it was not passed and they came back with this one, which allows for a relative other than the parent to be notified.

it sounds great, but the young woman must first go on record and say that she fears here abusive parents.

it just creates too much of a potentially dangerous situation for a young woman. i dont think the kinks have been worked out enough, and not enough follow up is proposed yet.

so for that reason i vote no. but if and when they do iron out the details, which would allow a young woman to get an abortion, with the guidance and counsel of a family relative, therapist, parent, etc, and will provide adequate post abortion counseling i will vote yes. i think this choice is a womans, but i also beleive that young woman need as much input from trusted individuals. sometimes parents arent that.

[tangodoodles]

I was going to vote YES on Prop 1 but now I guess I have to vote YES on Prop 1A. Honestly, I'm not sure what the difference is and I'm hoping it isn't an attempt to weasel out of the high-speed rail that a lot of us could use considering I'm in college in San Francisco, my parents live in Bakersfield, and my parents are also starting to transition further south as they prepare for eventual retirement. Considering that I'm on Amtrak for 6 hours just to get 280 miles, I think a high-speed rail is in order for sure.

I'm definitely voting YES on Prop 2. Farmers get millions of dollars in subsidies from the U.S. government, they should use some of my tax dollars to buy bigger cages and stop tearing the beaks off of chickens just so they can stuff them in tiny cages. Frankly, I know most of the animals are going to be killed but you'd think we could at least treat them humanely while they're still alive, right?

I'm also voting YES on Prop 3. As a survivor of childhood cancer I know how important it is to focus on the health of children. I was lucky to have a wonderful oncologist and radiologist in Bakersfield but many kids I knew ended up commuting to L.A. for a long time to be treated.

I'm voting NO on Prop 4, family members can get angry and force their children to keep the baby (*cough*Sarah Palin*cough*) and it could result in abuse. I'm just voting for it because I'm pro-choice and I don't think we need to add another obstacle for people who are obviously already in need of help.

I'm voting YES on Prop 5. Our jails and prisons are already full to bursting and we want to add more people for drug related offenses? Yeah, I'm not into that at all. Plus, MADD is against Prop 5 which means that I am solidly for it considering that MADD has become a fascist organization and would probably not be opposed to a modern day Prohibition.

I'm voting NO on Prop 6. Again, it increases the jail and prison population. Plus, millions towards "fighting" gang-related activity? We might as well shout at the rain.

I wasn't sure how to vote on Prop 7 so I went to the Sierra Club website and they said they were reluctantly opposing it for a multitude of reasons so I'm voting NO on Prop 7.

As for Prop 8, I'm voting a solid NOOOOOOOOOO! I consider the fight for same-sex marriage one of my most important political issues. It is opposition to same-sex marriage that prevents me from ever even considering voting for a Republican (although obviously there are lots of other reasons too ). Aside from Obama's campaign, this is the only other political issue that I donated to. I'm not gay but frankly I want my children to grow up in a state that is inclusive to all people and treats them the same. If Prop 8 passes by some slim margin, I think I'll move to Boston. I know that may sound extreme but I love the east coast almost as much as California (except the weather isn't as nice) and I could see myself living in either place as determined by the outcome of Prop 8.

I'm voting NO on Prop 9. Anytime you mention "victims' rights" in the title you know that they're making the justice system that little bit more unjust (not that it isn't already). The defense barely gets a fair shake anymore without adding this on top of it. Frankly, the judge should be the one making decisions about sentencing and parole, not the victim. If it was up to the victims I'm sure the defendent would get the book thrown at them every time regardless of their lack of criminal record. Yeah, Prop 9 is just a bad idea.

Like with Prop 7, I was also confused about how to vote on Prop 10 but the Sierra Club recommended against it so I guess I'm voting NO.

I'm SUPER CONFUSED about Prop 11 because Democrats are both in favor and opposed to it and I'm still not sure why exactly it's such a big deal. I'm thinking about voting NO on this prop though.

I'm voting YES on Prop 12. I get why opponents are saying that we should only give the money to people who served in combat zones but service for one's country isn't about fighting in a war. You have little control over where you get stationed. It seems unfair to make a distinction considering that all veterans sign up and are willing to serve in combat zones though not all of them are sent to combat zones.

[caldje]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

It also isn't recognized as legitimate in other states, so all one has to do to negate the relationship is abandon living in California and "poof" the obligation no longer exists.

This is actually not true. A same sex marriage in California would be recognized to provide ALL of the rights and responsiblities of marriage, under current law, in the following states and countries.

New York
Mass
Conneticut
Vermont
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Rhode Island
Canada
Netherlands
Belgium
Spain
South Africa
Norway
Israel
France
Aruba

Please respond, now that you know the truth, as to whether or not you will vote no on propoisition 8.

Thanks!

[happ]

tangodoodles;5557047]
I'm voting NO on Prop 9. Anytime you mention "victims' rights" in the title you know that they're making the justice system that little bit more unjust (not that it isn't already). The defense barely gets a fair shake anymore without adding this on top of it. Frankly, the judge should be the one making decisions about sentencing and parole, not the victim. If it was up to the victims I'm sure the defendent would get the book thrown at them every time regardless of their lack of criminal record. Yeah, Prop 9 is just a bad idea.

My understanding is that the crime victim is notified\ allowed to be present at parole hearings\ judicial rulings. The victim's presence reminds the offender that he/she has to answer to the people he hurt. From the perspective of holding the offender accountable, I see the process benefiting both victim & prisoner. It does add to the work load of probation & state institutions but worth the expense in my opinion. However in a serious recession, Californian's will need to keep in mind what can be afforded & I may vote against # 9.

I'm SUPER CONFUSED about Prop 11 because Democrats are both in favor and opposed to it and I'm still not sure why exactly it's such a big deal. I'm thinking about voting NO on this prop though.

One of the reasons the California legislature was 85 days late on the state budget is that there are enough Republicans to strangle the process [2/3's threshold]. The gerrymandering that allows "safe" districts for both Democrats & Republicans creates too much partisanship.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by happ

My understanding is that the crime victim is notified\ allowed to be present at parole hearings\ judicial rulings. The victim's presence reminds the offender that he/she has to answer to the people he hurt. From the perspective of holding the offender accountable, I see the process benefiting both victim & prisoner. It does add to the work load of probation & state institutions but worth the expense in my opinion. However in a serious recession, Californian's will need to keep in mind what can be afforded & I may vote against # 9.

One of the reasons the California legislature was 85 days late on the state budget is that there are enough Republicans to strangle the process [2/3's threshold]. The gerrymandering that allows "safe" districts for both Democrats & Republicans creates too much partisanship.

I just think the victims already have a say. They write victim impact statements and get a chance to speak at the sentencing. Beyond that, it's up to the judge. As far as I know, if the victims truly feel threatened or unsafe when the defendant is released from jail they can request a stay-away order. I think that giving the victims even more input than they already have will just result in longer prison sentences and even more crowding. I personally think that judges and juries have been doing a pretty good job deciding sentencing. I actually think they could afford to lighten up a bit.

I'm still confused about Prop 11. What you said seems to make sense but does it mean that I should vote for or against it?

[Winston Smith]

Since it's Sunday, and all, I though it might be ok to get a couple of Bible quotes:

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 24:14 - Bring forth him that hath cursed ... and let the congregation stone* him.

What kind of society are we trying to have with these types of rules?

*I don't believe it's referring to marijuana.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by cre8

Since it's Sunday, and all, I though it might be ok to get a couple of Bible quotes:

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 24:14 - Bring forth him that hath cursed ... and let the congregation stone* him.

What kind of society are we trying to have with these types of rules?

*I don't believe it's referring to marijuana.

thank you so much. leviticus 18:22 is oft referred to by the right wingers. the other parables from leviticus seem to have gone by the wayside. thanks for mentioning 24:14. maybe that should be the basis for a new commercial, making reference to the ridiculous parables from leviticus. i hope that calif voters are fair minded enough to vote NO on 8, but it's worrisome when you hear that churches are preaching from the pulpit urging their parishioners to vote yes.

[cr1039]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Your saying that the only thing that they want is financial and health benefits? Most of my Gay friends drive beautiful cars, live in nicer homes than I do, take trips to places that I read about. How much more financial benefit do you want? They can do all that because they don't have kids. We spend it on our kids. What health benefit do they need? My brother has plenty of health benefits. His job offers them to him. How is the lack of a marriage covenant keeping two same sex partners from having health benefits? Are you saying that one of them is now going to stay home because they are married? For what purpose? I bet that both parties will be working and at the same time getting health benefits from the employer. If the employer doesn't offer them than get a job that does.

I have been going through this thread and am finally compelled to respond to you.

YOU READ? Ha! Yeah, the poster who does not know the difference between "there and their" and "you're and your" reads.