California Green Party: Prop. 8 ruling freezing marriage equality until Winter is a Mistake

On The Wilder Side:

The Green Party of California called an appeal court’s decision to hold up same-sex marriages until at least December so the 9th Circuit can rule on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, a mistake, and another attack on the rights of a discriminated class of citizens.

The decision Monday froze same-sex marriages, which were due to resume Wednesday after U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s historic overturning of voter-approved Prop. 8 on Aug. 4. Upon examination of the claims of the defense, Judge Walker could find no credible evidence or argument that could hold up under empirical scrutiny.

Now, the 9th Circuit will hear the case in early December – and the ruling may not be made for months, according to court observers, with the prospect of the losing side appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Rather than allowing LGBTs to again enjoy what had unconstitutionally been taken from them, the Court adopted the most conservative route, and has prolonged the agony,” said Shane Que Hee, GPCA Platform Committee chair.

He went on to predict that same-sex marriage would become the law of land in California, noting “same-sex marriage will eventually win out because it ensures full equality.”

Unlike the largest political parties, whose candidates have flip-flopped on the issue, or just opposed same-sex marriage, the Green Party of California has always supported it in practice and in the party’s platform.

Judge Walker’s Aug. 4 ruling mirrors the goals and social philosophy of the Green Party of California, not only for the civil rights of our LGBT members but for everyone. Greens, as proponents of social justice, support equal representation under the law for everyone, and oppose social bigotry and intolerance, no matter how well funded or intimidating, Greens said.

72 thoughts on “California Green Party: Prop. 8 ruling freezing marriage equality until Winter is a Mistake

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    It seems obvious to me that the ongoing court drama has been put off until after the November elections.

    As a California Libertarian, I completely agree with the Greens that same-sex marriages should be allowed to continue after Judge Walker’s sound and well-written ruling.

  2. Steve

    Actually, it is only right that the appellate court issue a stay. Gay marriage is wrong and Prop 8 has banned such marriages. The government should honor the democratic process of Prop 8 and the homosexuals should stop whining about it.

  3. Brad

    Steve, do you really think it’s okay to put people’s rights to a popular vote?? Scotus has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. The california supreme court ruled that right extended to gays and lesbians. It’s the right thing to do to allow the courts to settle this matter.

  4. Stephen

    Our system is working as it was designed to work, even if the Supreme Court’s decisions are not when or what we want… We are not and never have been a true democracy and the creation of the Supreme Court makes it so. They are guided by but not bound to our democratic opinions. Their job is to ensure that no majority treads on any minority. This is what makes our country beautiful and strong.

    My 30 year marriage was created by my solemn oath to the Almighty that I will love, honor and protect my lady and our children. Jesus opened the curtain to God our father and I do not think that any priest or potentate has say-so as to who can address God with an oath.

    I think it is unfortunate that we ever allowed so much political rights, privilege and protections to stain our holy and church supported unions, but here we are stuck in a tussle where church and state have been inextricably co-mingled.

    Thus far the majority (supporters) in the prop8 court case has failed to show , under oath, to the supreme court any “real” harm and the minority have shown much financial, physical and mental harm. Superstition and fear worked well in Salem Massachusetts, but are no longer considered to be legal harm.

    Furthermore those facts of harm presented during the trial are swaying public opinion more quickly in the favor of allowing same sex families to be legal and recognized.

    Sooner or later, families formed by same sexed couples for mutual sharing of finances and the raising of children will be the law of the land.

    So then we Christians can return to feeding the hungry, healing the sick and clothing the naked. Thereby we will again lead the multitude to Jesus’ bountiful love instead of freighting them away with a pseudo-christian doctrine of 18th century superstition and hate.

  5. MikeA

    Apparently Green Party thinks that overturning Supreme Court precedent without even mentioning it (as judge Walker did) is OK. That’s COOOOOOL!

  6. Max

    Steve, democracy will be flawed as long as morons and bigots have the same vote everyone else does. You may take that as personally as you want.

  7. Chas

    I really don’t understand how gay marriage can be called “equality”. When a husband makes love with his wife, they can produce their own biological children, without having yo adopt them. But when a gay man makes love with his partner, he wiggles his private part up anotheran’s feckle hole. If they have children it’s through adoption. That is NOT equality.

  8. Stef

    Chas… Using your logic infertile couples are inferior to heterosexual couples who produce children. Try to wrap your 2 or 3 brain cells around a little old thing called logic.. please… you’re stupidity is astounding.

    Having children is NOT something that takes talent. Animals can reproduce. Making babies is not a skill! It takes REAL parents to raise a child in a loving home. When are people going to realize that THE WORLD IS FULL. PLEASE STOP POPPING OUT BABIES.

  9. Chas

    Stef,

    Name calling? Typical gay defense tactic. Won’t work with me. However you are correct, infertile couples cannot produce children, but infertile hetero couples can still have the normal natural husband-wife relationships that are natural socially, emotionally and physically. Gay men have to stick their dicks up another man’s butt hole which is where human waste is excreted. Still not nor ever will be equality.

  10. ss

    Hi,
    You seem to have developed ideas of what is normal and natural based on your “eww gross!” feeling and not based on rational thought, research, and certainly not compassion or understanding. Scientists have pretty much established that certain genes promote homosexuality and if it wasn’t “natural,” it wouldn’t exist according to the principle of natural selection. If there were no benefit for people to carry genes that produce homosexuality, those genes would be wiped out of the population. Many peer-reviewed studies suggest that when a heterosexual man carries some of them, he is more likely to be a more nurturing father and therefore a more attractive mate. Another theory suggests that, originally, homosexuality was a way to decrease competition for other-sex mates. By removing themselves from the gene pool, the homosexual individual increased the chances for his/her siblings to find a mate and pass on genes.
    As Judge Walker stated in his very detailed decision, marriage is not about procreation nor is it about the physical act of a penis entering a vagina. It is about the bond between two people who promise to commit to each other. It’s understandable that people lash out and resort to name calling in an attempt to defend a natural part of themselves.
    By the way, urine is also human waste and yet it is some how socially acceptable to stick a dick into a mouth. And plenty of heterosexual and homosexual female couples enjoy anal sex too.

    Chas, I really encourage you to look at some literature on this (I linked a couple articles) and think about why you are really disgusted by gay men. I think it has very little to do with them and a lot to do with you.

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.full.pdf+html

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

  11. patrick

    Hey there Chas,

    I completely sympathize with your concerns. It is not comfortable to entertain allowing other groups, whether homosexuals, muslims, african americans or any group that is unfamiliar to us, equal opportunity to the equal rights to health, wealth, and happiness. It is a human condition to protect our own corner of these attributes for fear that there is not enough to go around or to make ourselves out to be better than “those people”. The truth is, God loves us all. And, God created us all. He created caucasians and asians, white and black, heterosexual and homosexual, bisexual and transgender. It is Gods creation. Not human choice. No one would intentionally choose to be a minority if being part of the majority would be an easier choice. The problem is that it isn’t a choice. I am bi- sexual, and, I honestly don’t think I had a choice. I understand what it means to love a woman and also to love a man. I had a girlfriend at the age of 14 who had vaginal cancer. My last girlfriend at the age of 27 had herpes. Thankfully, I did not contract any disease from these women. I have also heard of men who like to have anal sex with women. There also many straight men who are terrible examples of what it means to be straight and human, such as Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, Stalin, Ferdinand Marcos, Kim Il Jung and the list goes on and on. No class, gender, sexual orientation, race, or age has a corner on morality. Human beings gay and straight, young and old, women and men, young and old, are all flawed. Lets look at life for what it really is and not what we selectively believe it to be. I honor your relationship with your wife and your children and ask that we all cherish, support and honor the lives of good human beings everywhere who want to just be in love, be in love and bare children or be in love and adopt children, be they gay or straight. Its really not our business to tell others how to live. The best that we can do, is to be a shining example of love and spread that love to our fellow human beings through our good deeds, our tolerance, and compassion for others who are different from ourselves. The truth is, we all all unique, and all part of Gods creation. We did not create this earth, God did. Lets honor and cherish the Creators creation of diversity in life. Just look at nature to affirm this truth. There is heterosexuality and homosexuality in other animals, coupling, commitment and promiscuity, fighting and peace. Lets use our brains and choose peace and tolerance. May God Bless us all….

  12. Steven R Linnabary

    My 30 year marriage was created by my solemn oath to the Almighty that I will love, honor and protect my lady…

    Is your marriage recognized by the state where you got permission to marry her? “License” is another word for permission.

    If a State is going to grant permission for some to marry, and bequeath special rights and privileges in so doing, then in a republic ALL must be treated equal with the same rights and privileges.

    PEACE

  13. Jay

    It’s really upsetting that in so many states the task of granting and withholding rights is given to people who make snap judgments without any clear reasoning behind them and do not have the educational background to make such decisions. To many it may seem like common sense that “it’s just wrong” or that being gay isn’t normal. Einstein said that “common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.” We need to rethink our prejudices and ask ourselves why we have them. Yes the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong but it says a lot of other crazy stuff too and nobody pays any attention to that. Or did I just miss the anti-pig skin activists protesting outside the professional football stadiums?

    Thank God that hate speech doesn’t hold water in court. You can use scare tactics and hate speech and stereotypical depictions and you can misuse the Bible but none of that will sway a reasonable judge.

    People who say this country is a democracy so the people should be able to vote on these matters should be reminded that America was never intended to be a direct democracy and that the Founding Fathers, who were actually terrified of the uneducated masses, structured the government so that mob mentality wouldn’t destroy the fragile union. Elected officials are meant to be held accountable for their actions but their actions were never intended to directly reflect the the wishes of their constituents.

  14. RWL

    Why is it that the mention of gay marriage brings out the morons? And they always invoke God to justify their point.

  15. Catholic Trotskyist

    Good comments Chas. The Catholic Trotskyist Party endorses Prop 8, and is proud of the many Democrats, especially in minority communities, who voted both for Obama and Prop 8; it shows that Catholic Trotskyism is on the march. But gay marriage isn’t nearly one of the most important issues.

    In fact I believe that the supporters and opponents of gay marriage are in league with each other because of their common obsession with making sexual relations an important topic in society. I have uncovered evidence that there was a secrte meeting between Jerry Falwell and Harvey Milk; they developed the concept of the gay marriage issue together in order to take the focus off the economy and our illegal wars. The discussion was mediated by Ralph Nader; these three men were brought together in order to develop the gay marriage plan in order to destroy the economy. Milk was killed because he had a change of heart and was planning to reveal this.

  16. paulie Post author

    I really don’t understand how gay marriage can be called “equality”. When a husband makes love with his wife, they can produce their own biological children, without having yo adopt them. But when a gay man makes love with his partner, he wiggles his private part up anotheran’s feckle hole. If they have children it’s through adoption. That is NOT equality.

    1. Infertile straight couples.
    2. Straight anal sex. There’s way more of it than gay anal sex.
    3. Not all homosexuals have anal sex. Oral sex is more prevalent, as lesbians and straight people have oral sex too.
    4. Nothing unnatural about it. All sorts of animal species have gay sex.
    5. What they do in bed is none of your business or mine, if they love each other the government has no business discriminating.

  17. MikeA

    Marital equality means that ALL kinds of marriage arrangements are equal. Including polygamy. And including group marriage (when any number of men can marry any number of women). Gay lobby (or should we say Gay Supremacist Lobby?) doesn’t ask for it. What they actually ask for is marital INEQUALITY, re-tailored to their wishes.

  18. patrick

    Mike, with all due respect, I suggest you focus on making “your life” the best it can be, rather than limiting the happiness of others who in no way effect you. Try to find a cause that promotes good rather than hate. Everyone has a burning desire to change the world. Consider funneling that energy in to a cause that can really make a difference and doesn’t limit the rights of other human beings. There are homelsss shelters that need volunteers, soup kitchen s that need help, urban forestry projects planting trees, the Pakistan flooding crisis desperately needs donations, animals who have been abandoned and need adoption and the list goes on and on……

  19. MikeA

    Patrick, let me add one more item into your list:
    And there are millions of American voters, brainwashed by “liberal” propaganda …
    (BTW, you don’t deny that my conclusion is correct, do you?)

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    MikeA, he probably doesn’t deny your conclusions because he knows it’s impossible to change a bigot’s mind. Of course, I can’t speak for him, but I have enough morons to deal with at work, so I wouldn’t bother to argue your conclusion, either.

  21. MikeA

    Jill Pyeatt,
    You called me “bigot” and “moron”.
    You don’t deserve any place in civilized discussion.
    I suggest you go to vituperation Olympics tournament and try to win whatever medal you can.

  22. Stephanie

    I can’t believe that in 2010 people like CHAS still exist. Hello, people, this is about love and marriage, why the obsession with sex? What goes on behind closed doors is no one’s business. For the record, Chas, I am a 34 year old woman who has been married for 10 years and my husband and I have elected to not have children. Chas, it’s really time for you to get your mind out of the gutter, focus on your own marriage, and stick your nose out of everyone else’s love and sex life. People who are obsessed with sex acts seem pretty creepy to me.

  23. Sean

    Once same-sex marriages are allowed, what’s to stop man & boy from getting married? At what age would it be “permissible” for a boy to marry a man? Who defines a person to be a man or a boy? What about people who want to marry goats? What’s to stop them? Who determines that man-boy or man-animal can’t marry? Do the people decide that manhood starts at 18? Do the people decide that animals have no souls? The problem many people fail to see is they start to determine what is morally right and morally wrong. Where & who determines where the line gets drawn in the sand?

  24. paulie Post author

    Once same-sex marriages are allowed, what’s to stop man & boy from getting married?

    The same thing that stops a man and an underage girl from getting married.

    At what age would it be “permissible” for a boy to marry a man?

    The same age when it would be “permissible” for a girl to marry a man.

    Who defines a person to be a man or a boy?

    Who defines a person to be a girl or a woman?

    What about people who want to marry goats?

    Can goats verifiably express consent to marry? Are they legally entitled to enter into any other kind of contract?

    What’s to stop them? Who determines that man-boy or man-animal can’t marry?

    Who determines that preteen boys and nonhuman animals can’t drive cars, or do any number of thing adult humans may choose to do?

    Do the people decide that manhood starts at 18? Do the people decide that animals have no souls?

    Fascinating questions, but what do they have to do with the decisions of consenting adults?

    The problem many people fail to see is they start to determine what is morally right and morally wrong. Where & who determines where the line gets drawn in the sand?

    Consenting adults. And yes, that does mean any number or gender(s) thereof.

  25. MikeA

    Paulie,
    Your “consenting adults” criteria apparently includes “any number of consenting male and/or female adults”.
    I.e. polygamy and group marriage.
    Logical?

  26. Kalvin

    I cant agree more with Mike A. and Sean more. Way to go! There just telling it like it is. Permitting man to marry goats invaribly will lead to plural marriages amongst the animal kingdom. Why we should let gays and lesbians marry is beyond me. They are not like the rest of us. We have feelings. We have normal sex which bares normal children with both a mother and a father. They just think about sex. Where will this all lead to? Sex or marriage between father and daughter, sex between sister and sister, or even worse, marriage. The majority has spoken, we dont want gay marriages or marriages between animals and humans or group marriages which WILL happen if gays marry. This not normal. This is not about comitment olr feelings or raising a family or going to church. This is about sex! A child needs a mother and a father. Not a father and a goat!

  27. paulie Post author

    Sex or marriage between father and daughter, sex between sister and sister,

    Just as long as I own the video rights.

  28. Kalvin

    Paulie, thats immoral and against the church and teachings of Jesus Christ and the Mormon Church. Let me quote a history of how we once were led astray just like you and found redemption:
    The early anti-Mormons that lampooned the citizens of Deseret could never have imagined that their targets would one day be recognized as paragons of puritan sexuality. The caricatures of Mormons as sexual miscreants have, for the most part, ceded to images of anachronistic sexual constraint. An historic review of Mormon discourse on intimacy reveals that just as others’ perceptions of Mormon intimacy have changed, so too, though to a lesser degree, is our own self image dynamic.

    Chastity is a virtue that has always been emphasized in Mormon thought. Historically, physical intimacy was viewed pragmatically with polygamy casting aspersions upon the concept of romantic union. Brigham even threatened that, “[i]f the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. ‘How far would you go in abolishing it?’ I would say, if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection.”

  29. paulie Post author

    @32 Yeah, that LSD church sure enough is wacky, Kalvin.

    @30 bares normal children with both a mother and a father.

    Bare children are unnatural. If God wanted children to be bare, He wouldn’t have caused them to be born clothed. Since bare children are unnatural, they must be punished.

  30. paulie Post author

    Sex or marriage between father and daughter, sex between sister and sister,

    Just as long as I own the video rights.

    More seriously, if they are all old enough and there’s no rape, the government has no business being involved.

  31. Kalvin

    Paulie, I give up trying to convert you to a Christian way of life. Your mind is focused on sex. There is no way to heal those that refuse to be healed from their own mis guided perceptions. Whats wrong with marriage just being between a man and a woman. Keep things simple. Gays and Lesbians can still have sex, they just need to steal our marriage identity that we have built over the last several thousand years. Why open the flood gates and make this more complicated than it already is?

  32. Kalvin

    Correction: they just DON’T need to steal our marriage identity that we have built over the last several thousand years. Why open the flood gates and make this more complicated than it already is?

  33. paulie Post author

    Whats wrong with marriage just being between a man and a woman.

    Equal protection under the laws.

    have built over the last several thousand years.

    Back in the good old days of forced and arranged marriages? Or way back in the ancient days before 1967 AD when some states banned so called “interracial” marriages?

  34. Mike

    The Mormon Church went about denying marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans the wrong way. Instead of donating millions of dollars toward passage of an unconstitutional initiative (Prop 8), they should have pushed for a repeal of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That’s the only way they can effectively achieve their goal of denying full legal rights to the gays and lesbians for whom they hold such hatred. Gays aren’t the enemy of the LDS Church; the U.S. Constitution is.

  35. MikeA

    Paulie,
    You answered “yes” to my
    “polygamy and group marriage” suggestion.
    I do admit that you surprised me.
    (<<>>).
    Back to the issue:
    It’s quite possible that if all people were like you, I wouldn’t have a problem with gay marriage, polygamy and group marriage.
    (And it’s quite possible that if all people were like Lenin, his Communistic experiment would be a success).
    The problem is that vast majority of people are not of that kind. People are not inherently good or rational or logical (the Founders understood that; therefore we have “checks and balances” safeguards).
    And in people’s irrational minds disapproval of gays & lesbians is linked to so-called “family values” (I use the word “disapproval” because it can co-exist with “tolerance”).
    And I do believe that legalizing gay marriage will contribute to further “Deinstitutionalization Of Marriage” (as Prop 8 side’s expert put it) – i.e. more divorces, more abandoned children, etc. (I don’t say such effect will be big, but it will exist).
    Of course it’s illogical an irrational, but, again, people are not logical beings.
    Think about it. Please.

  36. MikeA

    My remark inside the brackets was lost; Here it is:
    off-the topic: then I’ve read again your posts and got a feeling that if I were on your side I would use the same arguments; then I clicked on your name link … Well, your birthplace is close to mine; I was born on the Ural Mountains.

  37. paulie Post author

    And it’s quite possible that if all people were like Lenin, his Communistic experiment would be a success

    No, that wouldn’t be possible. See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

    And I do believe that legalizing gay marriage will contribute to further “Deinstitutionalization Of Marriage” (as Prop 8 side’s expert put it) – i.e. more divorces, more abandoned children, etc.

    Why?

    Well, your birthplace is close to mine; I was born on the Ural Mountains.

    Not so close 🙂 From Tolyatti to Berdsk:


    View Larger Map

  38. paulie Post author

    Oops – zoom out for perspective, (-)….even further to Irkutsk, which I actually remember.

    My father’s parents lived in Tolyatti until they left.

  39. MikeA

    Paulie,
    1) Re: “if all people were like Lenin” – my remark was more illustrative than argumentative; let’s not waste any more time on it.
    2) But thanks for the link anyway.
    3) Re: “Deinstitutionalization Of Marriage” and your “Why?” question:
    Because that’s essentially how Prop 8 supporters feel about it. Like “Self-fulfilling prophecy”.
    ===================
    I can’t mathematically prove that I’m correct and you can’t mathematically prove that I’m wrong. It’s feeling against feeling; intuition against intuition. And it’s the lawmakers who are supposed to decide such cases (and of course when voters vote on a ballot they are the “acting lawmakers”).

  40. paulie Post author

    1. You’re welcome

    2. I don’t see such “feelings” as a reason to deny some people equal protection of laws. In 1960s some people still felt that legalizing “interracial” marriages would lead to some kind of disaster.

    3. Some laws supersede voters. Voters can’t vote to make “interracial” marriages illegal, for instance. Thus the courts have a legitimate say.

  41. MikeA

    2a) “Feelings” and “intuition” indeed influence a lot of “inequality laws” which everybody sees as reasonable. For example, 21-years-old man can go to casino, but 20-years-and-364-days-old can’t (I mean legally can’t).
    Everybody agrees that there should be some age restriction, but how to determine which one?
    It comes down to “well, that’s seems like a reasonable limit…”.
    2b) & 3) About interracial marriage:
    – I think it became “legalized” (i.e. illegal to be prohibited) since the passage of the 1st Civil Rights Act in 1866, because it EXPLICITLY stated “full and equal benefit of ALL laws” … “as is enjoyed by white citizens”.
    And it’s a federal law; not part of the Constitution. Theoretically Congress can repeal it (practically impossible of course).
    If there were similar law, EXPLICITLY stating “no discrimination of ANY kind, based on sexual orientation” (or something like that) – then Prop 8 would be illegal.
    =====================
    It’s a common perception that 14th amendment prohibits ALL racial discrimination.
    I think that’s a misconception.
    Take for example, recent Supreme Court case “Ricci v. DeStefano” (New Haven firefighters).
    The decision was not based on 14th amendment, but on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which narrowly permits racial discrimination in some cases. And 5 out of 9 justices decided that this permission doesn’t apply here.

  42. MikeA

    I know about Loving v. Virginia.
    As I understand it, Justices declared that anti-miscegenation law was illegal from the very beginning; from the time it was passed.
    I admit, I don’t know if 1866 Civil Rights Act was mentioned in their decision, but I do think that Act would be enough to invalidate anti-miscegenation law (maybe combined with “Privileges or Immunities Clause” of 14th amendment)

  43. Catholic Trotskyist

    Calvin, many on this site have tried to convert Paulie to a Christian way of life. I think it’s not gonna happen unfortunately, but overall he’s still a good guy.

  44. Kalvin

    Thats refreshing to know, but, how can we stop gay marriage? California’s problem is going to spread like wildfire if prop 8 gets reversed. ( ill check messages later, have to go to work…)

  45. MikeA

    4) There should be survey (maybe by Fox News) asking two questions together:
    1. Do you think Constitution grants right to polygamy?
    2. Do you think Constitution grants right to same-sex marriage?
    That will help people to realize that the issues are related.

  46. MikeA

    === Maybe the most important ===.
    Focus on the REAL civil rights issue of today.
    Which is “affirmative racism” – i.e. racial discrimination, misnamed/justified as “affirmative action”.

  47. paulie Post author

    I’m all for polygamy/polyandry, and I’m against any government discrimination or identification of people by the pseudoscientific concept of “race.” I don’t think it’s the most important issue, though.

    Your posts are not blocked – there’s an automated spam filter which blocks out most spam and lets most legitimate comments through, but sometimes makes mistakes in both directions. I don’t know any way to adjust the settings, but if you write contact.ipr@gmail.com we can find comments and fish them out of spam.

  48. MikeA

    Paulie,
    We understand, that you support polygamy, etc.
    My point is – public should be INFORMED that gay marriage & polygamy issues are related;
    that Marital Equality means that ALL kinds of marriage arrangements are equal (including polygamy and group marriage).
    ===============
    BTW, it’s only 2nd time I see somebody supporting both same-sex marriage and polygamy. The 1st one was a lawyer (don’t remember his name), who argued before NY Supreme Court on behalf of same-sex couples.

  49. paulie Post author

    Five year olds do not have the judgment to contract on their own, generally don’t have the ability to support themselves with very few exceptions (and even then only with the help of adults in managing their money and other respects), and thus letting them vote is coercive towards other people that are effected by the outcome of the vote.

    So yes, I do mean that literally, but only as it applies to adults. It does apply to children within some limits as well.

  50. paulie Post author

    There’s no coercion in requiring people to join an organization before voting on its policies/leadership. The real problem is that voters are empowered to coerce everyone, including those on the losing side, those who did not vote and those who were not allowed to vote.

  51. MikeA

    BTW,
    Does anybody know how votes pro and against Prop 8 broke down between married and single people? And between parents and childless people?
    There are similar data online for whites/blacks/Latinos, age groups, etc. but I couldn’t find any such poll data for married vs. single and parents vs. childless.
    For such family-related issues it’s important.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *