Today, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling for "In re Marriage Cases," thereby striking down California laws banning same-sex couples from marriage. The ruling was 4-3, though it is important to note one of the dissenting justices started her opinion with the following note:
“[i]n my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...”
Basically, she believes there should be same-sex marriage, but it should be implemented by way of the Legislature, versus by way of the Judiciary; that the Court has over-stepped its authority in reversing the laws and ballot initiatives of the people of the State of California.
Regardless, the State of California can no longer ban same-sex couples from marrying, and will also have to recognize the marriages from those states where they are legal. This will take effect in 30 days, barring intervention on the part of the Court in postponing this action.
I never cared much about same-sex marriage until those on the right made such a big deal about it. I've said this before, and I'll say it again now: if you need a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, then such marriages are currently legal, and more importantly, Constitutionally sound. That is, laws banning such marriages are unconstitutional. If they weren't, then an amendment would not be needed.
This makes California to be the second state (after Massachusetts) in the Union who will recognize same-sex marriages, both those performed in-state as well as those from out-of-state. Currently the following states recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or some similar form of union other than marriage that confers some or all rights afforded married opposite-sex couples in said state: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
It is also quite important to keep in mind this does not force religious institutions or other entities to perform marriages with which they do not agree. Quite simply, the only persons that would possibly be forced to perform said marriages beyond their will would be civil servants; even that would be unlikely, with the State most likely finding a replacement to perform the ceremony.
It was also interesting to see the following churches, religious institutions and faiths represented by the Respondent lawyers, meaning they sided with those who won in the end:
General Synod of the United Church of Christ
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
The Rabbinical Assembly
The Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association
Metropolitan Community Church
There were also many, many individual churches from such varied sects as Mormon, Catholic, Presbyterian, United Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Mennonite, as well as individual faith leaders (reverends, rabbis, etc).
It's nice to see that because of a belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour does not necessarily mean that you aren't also fair-minded.
As always, let me know what you think!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
What do I think?
So I took 5 different political quizzes earlier tonight and below are my results, as well as links to the quiz itself!
The Political Compass
Left Libertarian: -2.12 on a scale of -10 is Left and +10 is Right (economic issues) & -5.44 on a scale of -10 is Libertarian and +10 is Authoritarian (social issues).
Advocates for Self-Government
Liberal Libertarian: 100% Personal Score and 50% Economics Score
Political Survey from Mythic Beasts
Left/right -0.1667 where -1 is Left and +1 is Right
Pragmatism +0.1635 where -1 is Idealistic and +1 is Pragmatic
I'd have to admit these results mean the least to me lol.
Moral Politics Test
Scored -4.5 on Moral Order and -0.5 on Moral Rules
The following categories best match my score:
System - Liberalism
Ideology - Capital Democratism
Party - Democratic Party
Presidents - JFK
'04 Election - Ralph Nader
'08 Election - Barack Obama
Political Survey 2005
This is a British test, so not sure how well this fits me.
On Crime and Punishment & Internationalism: -3.0, slightly internationalist and rehabilitationist. On Economics, etc: 2.0, fairly free-market and pro-war.
60.1% of Britain is more punitive and isolationist than me, which I thought was pretty telling.
Let me know how you do!!
The Political Compass
Left Libertarian: -2.12 on a scale of -10 is Left and +10 is Right (economic issues) & -5.44 on a scale of -10 is Libertarian and +10 is Authoritarian (social issues).
Advocates for Self-Government
Liberal Libertarian: 100% Personal Score and 50% Economics Score
Political Survey from Mythic Beasts
Left/right -0.1667 where -1 is Left and +1 is Right
Pragmatism +0.1635 where -1 is Idealistic and +1 is Pragmatic
I'd have to admit these results mean the least to me lol.
Moral Politics Test
Scored -4.5 on Moral Order and -0.5 on Moral Rules
The following categories best match my score:
System - Liberalism
Ideology - Capital Democratism
Party - Democratic Party
Presidents - JFK
'04 Election - Ralph Nader
'08 Election - Barack Obama
Political Survey 2005
This is a British test, so not sure how well this fits me.
On Crime and Punishment & Internationalism: -3.0, slightly internationalist and rehabilitationist. On Economics, etc: 2.0, fairly free-market and pro-war.
60.1% of Britain is more punitive and isolationist than me, which I thought was pretty telling.
Let me know how you do!!
Thursday, April 3, 2008
democratIC party...
So I'm in this online simulation for the US government, focusing mainly on the Senate aspect, and this is a conversation that came up recently.
People in the Republican Party (and possibly the Libertarian and Personal Choice parties) have often been referring to those of us in the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party. Do a double-take, I'll give you a moment to find the typo.
Now, this has been a problem in US politics for decades, but has more recently reared its head with Bush and his current Republican Party, as well as the mouthpieces on the talk show radio circuit and right wing-controlled mainstream media. Those of us in the center-left party of these United States are called Democrats, yes, but we belong to the Democratic Party and have done so for the more than 200 years we've existed.
This is a slur meant to demean those members of the Democratic Party. Some in the simulation, and I'm sure in real-life as well, don't see what the big deal is. Problem is, those folks are not in the Democratic Party and therefore couldn't care less what the image is, or what we are called.
Another member of the simulation (right-wing I must mention) has pointed out that calling it the Democrat Party versus Democratic Party doesn't change the meaning of the word. Touché. Problem is, it's not meant to change the meaning of the word, but rather to slur those of that particular party. George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like have used this particular non-phrase to piss the Democrats off. The simple fact of the matter is, they say it meaning it as a slur, not to change the meaning.
The big problem I have is that those who say they didn't know it was a slur are idiots for one of two reasons. All in the simulation are quite intelligent, though some may be very misguided. Those that say the slur either mean it as a slur, or have gotten so used to those in the right-wing saying it (and they are definitely are using it as a slur) that they use it interchangeably with the real phrase. One can look at it as Internet vs. Web. Both are different, and the words mean different things, but folks these days use them interchangeably and do so incorrectly.
So it comes down to either they are using the slur intentionally or they are ignorant to the fact it is meant as a slur, not as a substitution, like GOP is the same as Republican Party.
Wake up, idiots.
People in the Republican Party (and possibly the Libertarian and Personal Choice parties) have often been referring to those of us in the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party. Do a double-take, I'll give you a moment to find the typo.
Now, this has been a problem in US politics for decades, but has more recently reared its head with Bush and his current Republican Party, as well as the mouthpieces on the talk show radio circuit and right wing-controlled mainstream media. Those of us in the center-left party of these United States are called Democrats, yes, but we belong to the Democratic Party and have done so for the more than 200 years we've existed.
This is a slur meant to demean those members of the Democratic Party. Some in the simulation, and I'm sure in real-life as well, don't see what the big deal is. Problem is, those folks are not in the Democratic Party and therefore couldn't care less what the image is, or what we are called.
Another member of the simulation (right-wing I must mention) has pointed out that calling it the Democrat Party versus Democratic Party doesn't change the meaning of the word. Touché. Problem is, it's not meant to change the meaning of the word, but rather to slur those of that particular party. George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like have used this particular non-phrase to piss the Democrats off. The simple fact of the matter is, they say it meaning it as a slur, not to change the meaning.
The big problem I have is that those who say they didn't know it was a slur are idiots for one of two reasons. All in the simulation are quite intelligent, though some may be very misguided. Those that say the slur either mean it as a slur, or have gotten so used to those in the right-wing saying it (and they are definitely are using it as a slur) that they use it interchangeably with the real phrase. One can look at it as Internet vs. Web. Both are different, and the words mean different things, but folks these days use them interchangeably and do so incorrectly.
So it comes down to either they are using the slur intentionally or they are ignorant to the fact it is meant as a slur, not as a substitution, like GOP is the same as Republican Party.
Wake up, idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
