Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it odd that Californians were posed this issue as a ballot referendum (sp?), and they voted to uphold the ban. Now, their supreme court has gone against the will of the voting public, and has lifted it. I could see if it was never brought up for public consideration, but in my mind it was voted on and the people expressed their desire. It should require a similar action to lift the ban, not the say-so of a four men.
Um, no.
Americans live in a constitutional federal republic. That means the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the will of a majority of voters. Because we are a federal republic as well, states also have constitutions. State laws are subject to the state constitution, which may grant more rights than under the federal constitution. The California Supreme Court is the last word on the constitutionality of its state laws. It ruled that the law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional under its state Constitution. If you disagree with our basic structure of government, then say so. If you disagree with the decision on the merits, say so. But don't say that Californians should just toss away their Constitution on this issue to get the result you want.
Americans live in a constitutional federal republic. That means the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the will of a majority of voters. Because we are a federal republic as well, states also have constitutions. State laws are subject to the state constitution, which may grant more rights than under the federal constitution. The California Supreme Court is the last word on the constitutionality of its state's laws. It ruled that the law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional under its state Constitution. If you disagree with our basic structure of government, then say so. If you disagree with the decision on the merits, say so. But don't say that Californians should just toss away their Constitution on this issue to get the result you want.
Then why even offer it up for consideration? My comments don't pertain to the subject matter, it could just as well be a vote on trans fat content in bagels.
One would think that a state constitution would reflect the will of the people of that particular state, so long as they do not violate the US constitution, of course. In this case, it does not seem to be so.
Typically, amending the constitution is harder and more involved than simply passing a law. Our own state has several hoops to pass through: it has to pass by majority vote: (2) votes by the general assembly and (1) vote by the entire electorate, and there are temporal and publication requirements too. California is weird, though. I don't know why the gay marriage ban law was offered as a "statutory initiative" and not as a "constitutional amendment initiative" since the process is virtually identical. We'll see what the voters say if the amendment proposal gets on the ballot.
I find it odd that Californians were posed this issue as a ballot referendum (sp?), and they voted to uphold the ban. Now, their supreme court has gone against the will of the voting public, and has lifted it. I could see if it was never brought up for public consideration, but in my mind it was voted on and the people expressed their desire. It should require a similar action to lift the ban, not the say-so of a four men.
California is known for its liberal activist judges that take an issue and go against the will of the majority of people.
As many of you may know, I've been posting frequently on the Genesis Wildlife Center threads. The center is hoping to get a $10 million grant to expand the old zoo building. Back in 2005, the Scranton Times ran an article about a study that was done on creating a new wildlife center in Nay Aug Park. According to that article, "Preliminary drawings show expansion of the center to a connected building across the street and down the hillside abutting the Davis Trail. Tentative features include a bird atrium and a lookout over the Nay Aug gorge." I have no idea if these tentative features made it into the plans that would be used to enlarge the center if the $10 million grant comes through. The idea of a bird atrium seems pretty nice, but I'm not sure why the animals would need a lookout over the gorge--I understand that visitors would probably appreciate the lookout, but the point should be to make the best possible use of the money and create something that is both appropriate and useful for the animals and fun for the visitors. Again, I don't know if the lookout is to be in the final plans or not. It just seems like a rather strange (and probably expensive) feature to consider when funding is limited.
I understand that construction of any sort can be extremely expensive, and you really do have to know the details of what was (or will be) involved in any given project before you can decide whether the costs seem reasonable. However, I have been researching recent improvements made at other zoos, and it seems to me that for $10 million the city ought to be able to build a center that has state-of-the-art habitats for at least some of the animals and that will also be quite pleasant for the center's visitors. So far, the only concrete thing I've learned about the proposed center is that it's going to have a nice grassy area in which the animals can "run free." To which I say, "Big deal." I'd really like to know how they're planning on spending the grant if they get it. Perhaps the newly seeded grassy area will be mulched with shredded cash.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but the whole situation with the Genesis Wildlife Center is really, well, okay...it's ridiculous. I'd be happy to change my opinion of the situation if I see evidence that someone down there knows what they're doing when it comes to the care of captive wild animals; hearing a bit more about what they'd do with the $10 million might be helpful. It amazes me that they've asked people to support them in their effort to get the grant, but they've done precious little to tell us what they're planning. I check the Scranton Times pretty regularly, but maybe I've missed something. Have there been any articles on exactly what sort of $10 million center they're envisioning? Do the plans actually exist? Are they top-secret? I would appreciate hearing anything anyone knows about this. Feel free to email me.
Thanks, everyone, for listening to my rant,
Mary (MBS7)
The GWC and the clueless city admin are working towards a wonderful new $10,000,000 election pulpit and PR campaign....
They will hire a local firm to design the new "center" because thats what they do. Regardless of whether or not they are the right firm or have the experience needed to build centers for animals they will get the contract. Next they will hire a local construction company that has no experience in zoo construction and they will build it. It will be built without ever being inspected and will never be up to code but hey they don't care. It will cost about $6,000,000 with the other 4 being split among those that made it happen.
The terrible construction problems that will arise will not be Doherty's problem but those of the next admin.
The mayor will campaign on the park and the "new center" for the animals. My question is when the next mayor is handed a city that is hundreds of millions in debt from Doherty will he feel the same about the GWC or like our last mayor will he think that it is a expense that we can do without and close it again.
I honestly think that our "partnership" with the GWC needs to be ended and the center can go back to be a PRIVATE ANIMAL SANCTUARY that is the business of caring for animals.
NOTHING GOOD WILL COME FROM BEING IN BED WITH DOHERTY!
Aside from all the legal jargon going back and forth, I think the basic issue about the gay marriage ban is that we supposedly live in a free country and there should be no laws that prevent people from doing anything as long as it is not hurting anyone else. It does not hurt anyone when two men or two women decide to be "married." So, why does this issue bring up so much animosity? Aren't we ready as a culture to just accept the fact that every relationship is unique, and we should be doing everything possible to encourage the flowering of love on this planet? Hurray for Californians!!
The GWC and the clueless city admin are working towards a wonderful new $10,000,000 election pulpit and PR campaign....
They will hire a local firm to design the new "center" because thats what they do. Regardless of whether or not they are the right firm or have the experience needed to build centers for animals they will get the contract. Next they will hire a local construction company that has no experience in zoo construction and they will build it. It will be built without ever being inspected and will never be up to code but hey they don't care. It will cost about $6,000,000 with the other 4 being split among those that made it happen.
The terrible construction problems that will arise will not be Doherty's problem but those of the next admin.
The mayor will campaign on the park and the "new center" for the animals. My question is when the next mayor is handed a city that is hundreds of millions in debt from Doherty will he feel the same about the GWC or like our last mayor will he think that it is a expense that we can do without and close it again.
I honestly think that our "partnership" with the GWC needs to be ended and the center can go back to be a PRIVATE ANIMAL SANCTUARY that is the business of caring for animals.
NOTHING GOOD WILL COME FROM BEING IN BED WITH DOHERTY!
Without more facts to go on, I can't agree or disagree with what you're saying about how you think the construction of the new center would play out. Nor do I have (or wish to have) any personal experience on the matter of whether or not anything good comes from being in bed with Mayor Doherty. However, I do agree with one thing you've said: I think it's time for the partnership with the Genesis Wildlife Center to end. I'm not saying that they and the animals should be tossed out in the street--I think the city needs to give them a reasonable amount of time to make the move. But it's time for them to go.
I started this whole process feeling that the GWC was not the best fit for the park, but since they were already there, and since I am concerned about what will happen to their animals if they are asked to leave, I thought it was worth trying to find some way to set things up so that the GWC, its animals, and the city would benefit. The least expensive, most sensible, and easiest way to do that, I think, would have been to work to place as many of their animals as possible at other facilities, and then to use the savings to get the center in better order and provide properly for the remaining animals. As far as I can tell, the GWC does not appear to be interested in doing that. In fact, it appears that they may be interested in acquiring still more animals. I do not think that partnering with the GWC was one of Mayor Doherty's better ideas.
Months ago, I sent a letter to the mayor, describing the problems at the GWC. I was very careful to only include problems that I had either seen with my own eyes or could document. I put a lot of time and thought into the letter, and I sent copies to every city council member. One of the things I pointed out in the letter was that I felt that the director and staff at the center are not as careful as they should be in regard to the treatment of potentially dangerous animals, like the cougars and the recently deceased tiger. I have heard not one word from the mayor's office--not even a quick email acknowledging receipt of my letter. There is, however, a section on the GWC's volunteer application form in which the applicant must acknowledge that he/she understands the risks involved in working at the center, and agrees to hold the GWC--and the city--harmless in the event of some problem. (The center's application also asks if the applicant has ever been bitten by an animal, and when the applicant's last tetanus shot was.) Draw your own conclusions.
By the way, I hope that my posts here about the GWC will not divert attention from the other topics being discussed--many of which are far more important than the issue of the zoo. I only started posting here because the mayor and finances were being discussed, and the question of whether or not the $10 million should be used to construct a new wildlife center in the park seemed relevant. (Also, I felt the need to rant a little and the political thread seemed like the best place to do that.)
MBS7
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Other conversations
