OT: The Propositions on the ballot in CA

[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.

[CAwireman]

Here’s how, two weeks out, I plan to vote:
Yes:
State
1A, 2, 7, 11
San Diego
C

[CAwireman]

Here’s how, two weeks out, I plan to vote:
Yes:
State
1A, 2, 7, 11
San Diego
C

[CAwireman]

Here’s how, two weeks out, I plan to vote:
Yes:
State
1A, 2, 7, 11
San Diego
C

[CAwireman]

Here’s how, two weeks out, I plan to vote:
Yes:
State
1A, 2, 7, 11
San Diego
C

[CAwireman]

Here’s how, two weeks out, I plan to vote:
Yes:
State
1A, 2, 7, 11
San Diego
C

[cr]

[quote=esmith]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.
[/quote]

I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.

[cr]

[quote=esmith]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.
[/quote]

I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.

[cr]

[quote=esmith]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.
[/quote]

I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.

[cr]

[quote=esmith]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.
[/quote]

I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.

[cr]

[quote=esmith]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.
[/quote]

I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.

[TheBreeze]

Even if some of these propositions pass, is anyone out there dumb enough to buy bonds from California? Isn’t the state already near bankruptcy?

[TheBreeze]

Even if some of these propositions pass, is anyone out there dumb enough to buy bonds from California? Isn’t the state already near bankruptcy?

[TheBreeze]

Even if some of these propositions pass, is anyone out there dumb enough to buy bonds from California? Isn’t the state already near bankruptcy?

[TheBreeze]

Even if some of these propositions pass, is anyone out there dumb enough to buy bonds from California? Isn’t the state already near bankruptcy?

[Author]

Posts