OT: The Propositions on the ballot in CA

[cr]

Wasn’t going to get into 8, but I’m surprised by some what I read here.

Where do you stop?

What’s to stop 3 men from marrying? 2 men and a woman? A man his dog? An adult and a child? And so on…

The defining of marriage is a family values issue before it’s a civil rights issue. This bill would have never made the books 50 years ago, and look at the degradation of our society since then. I’m sure some wise-ass liberal on here will look back and find a racist or biggotist quote from that time period but it doesn’t change the fact that American values have eroded, and this furthers that erosion.

Other comments:
Proposition 1A High speed passenger train Bond – Too expensive. Spend it on education.

Proposition 3 Children’s hospital Bond Act. – There’s already money set aside for this

Proposition 4 Waiting period and Parental notification before Minor’s abortion. – see above.

Proposition 6 – Spend this money on schools, (sports, arts programs, etc) and you’ll have less criminals in the first place.

Proposition 7 Renewable engergy generation – will almost definately raise energy costs. Let the Federal government fund the alternative energy search.

Proposition 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. – Boone Pockets, I mean Pickens

You don’t have to agree with me, I just wish everyone know more about these.

Glad to see people taking time to read up on them.

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]Wasn’t going to get into 8, but I’m surprised by some what I read here.

Where do you stop?

What’s to stop 3 men from marrying? 2 men and a woman? A man his dog? An adult and a child? And so on…
[/quote]

The government should not discriminate against civil unions between consenting adults solely because those unions don’t conform to the definition used in a certain religion.

It can be argued that a child cannot consent to marriage (although examples of children getting married off to adults are present even in the Bible), same with the dog.

There are probably many laws on the books that implicitly assume that marriage is always between two people. It would be technically challenging to include polygamy; other than that, I don’t see why it should be excluded.

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]Wasn’t going to get into 8, but I’m surprised by some what I read here.

Where do you stop?

What’s to stop 3 men from marrying? 2 men and a woman? A man his dog? An adult and a child? And so on…
[/quote]

The government should not discriminate against civil unions between consenting adults solely because those unions don’t conform to the definition used in a certain religion.

It can be argued that a child cannot consent to marriage (although examples of children getting married off to adults are present even in the Bible), same with the dog.

There are probably many laws on the books that implicitly assume that marriage is always between two people. It would be technically challenging to include polygamy; other than that, I don’t see why it should be excluded.

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]Wasn’t going to get into 8, but I’m surprised by some what I read here.

Where do you stop?

What’s to stop 3 men from marrying? 2 men and a woman? A man his dog? An adult and a child? And so on…
[/quote]

The government should not discriminate against civil unions between consenting adults solely because those unions don’t conform to the definition used in a certain religion.

It can be argued that a child cannot consent to marriage (although examples of children getting married off to adults are present even in the Bible), same with the dog.

There are probably many laws on the books that implicitly assume that marriage is always between two people. It would be technically challenging to include polygamy; other than that, I don’t see why it should be excluded.

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]Wasn’t going to get into 8, but I’m surprised by some what I read here.

Where do you stop?

What’s to stop 3 men from marrying? 2 men and a woman? A man his dog? An adult and a child? And so on…
[/quote]

The government should not discriminate against civil unions between consenting adults solely because those unions don’t conform to the definition used in a certain religion.

It can be argued that a child cannot consent to marriage (although examples of children getting married off to adults are present even in the Bible), same with the dog.

There are probably many laws on the books that implicitly assume that marriage is always between two people. It would be technically challenging to include polygamy; other than that, I don’t see why it should be excluded.

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]Wasn’t going to get into 8, but I’m surprised by some what I read here.

Where do you stop?

What’s to stop 3 men from marrying? 2 men and a woman? A man his dog? An adult and a child? And so on…
[/quote]

The government should not discriminate against civil unions between consenting adults solely because those unions don’t conform to the definition used in a certain religion.

It can be argued that a child cannot consent to marriage (although examples of children getting married off to adults are present even in the Bible), same with the dog.

There are probably many laws on the books that implicitly assume that marriage is always between two people. It would be technically challenging to include polygamy; other than that, I don’t see why it should be excluded.

[DWCAP]

[quote=JordanT] It would probably be best to have the state just call everything a civil union and leave marriages to the church. However, the second best option is to just call everything marriage so we don’t have to set up a separate but equal institution.
[/quote]

Yes! I am not alone in my train of thought.

[DWCAP]

[quote=JordanT] It would probably be best to have the state just call everything a civil union and leave marriages to the church. However, the second best option is to just call everything marriage so we don’t have to set up a separate but equal institution.
[/quote]

Yes! I am not alone in my train of thought.

[DWCAP]

[quote=JordanT] It would probably be best to have the state just call everything a civil union and leave marriages to the church. However, the second best option is to just call everything marriage so we don’t have to set up a separate but equal institution.
[/quote]

Yes! I am not alone in my train of thought.

[DWCAP]

[quote=JordanT] It would probably be best to have the state just call everything a civil union and leave marriages to the church. However, the second best option is to just call everything marriage so we don’t have to set up a separate but equal institution.
[/quote]

Yes! I am not alone in my train of thought.

[DWCAP]

[quote=JordanT] It would probably be best to have the state just call everything a civil union and leave marriages to the church. However, the second best option is to just call everything marriage so we don’t have to set up a separate but equal institution.
[/quote]

Yes! I am not alone in my train of thought.

[TuVu]

I already voted no on everything but 2 and 9. I have a very personal interest in victim’s rights.

IMHO, the whole county should get to vote on the beach booze thing.

[TuVu]

I already voted no on everything but 2 and 9. I have a very personal interest in victim’s rights.

IMHO, the whole county should get to vote on the beach booze thing.

[TuVu]

I already voted no on everything but 2 and 9. I have a very personal interest in victim’s rights.

IMHO, the whole county should get to vote on the beach booze thing.

[TuVu]

I already voted no on everything but 2 and 9. I have a very personal interest in victim’s rights.

IMHO, the whole county should get to vote on the beach booze thing.

[Author]

Posts