I am a supporter of Obama!
As for the propositions, I did brief research on the ones I found interesting and voted accordingly:
1a - Yes. I am for more reliable, affordable public transportation systems.
2 - Yes. I believe in the prevention of animal cruelty. I don't mind eating less meat or eggs (etc) in order to make sure that animals are not treated in such a insanely barbaric manner. Imagine, confinement of these poor creatures in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Also imagine egg-laying hens crammed into filthy cages, while, nearby, discarded birds are left to die in piles of corpses. I'm happy to know that my eggs come from happy chickens who are free to roam about in their huge "house."
4 - No. I can understand why the proponents would argue in favor - kids under 18 can make very rash decisions that might harm them. In this case, apparently the girl that they named this proposition after - Sarah, died after receiving a botched abortion. Proponents argue that the family is needed to be contacted before a minor has an abortion in order to assist with medical history and appropriate care afterward. This is all great, however, as a girl - I strongly advocate pro-choice to have an abortion and a choice in telling who I want to, or not. It is up to the doctor's to get as much medical history as possible and I would never hold the doctor accountable for my death for something he didn't know. It's my risk to take and my decision to make.
5- Yes. This proposition requires California to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees. I think its really important to distinguish violent vs non violent drug offenders. I understand that drugs may lead to violence, but if you were convicted of having a little bit of drugs on you or you were just "sharing with your friends" that doesn't necessarily mean you're a bad person and in the same boat/category as people who committed violent crimes. I would really like to see this state and country have rehabilitation programs instead of jailing the nonviolent drug offenders. It's not like they hurt people! And granted that they may go back to dealing drugs again or using drugs - but as long as they're hurting people ...
6 - No. I really really do NOT believe this part of the proposition :: "Deems any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a gang-related felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court and prosecuting these youths as adults." NO NO NO! There is a reason why minors are tried under juvenile court. I believe strongly in those reasons and I strongly believe in erasing a minors record of past wrongs when they're 18. Furthermore, in regards to this proposition, I don't like, the "Eliminate bail for illegal aliens charged with violent or gang-related felonies" part. Nor the "Change evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable." So NO!
7 & 10- Yes. I believe its really important that the US take necessary steps in order for us to be a leader in clean power technology & using clean alternative fuels. It's a very solid goal for us to have - especially in the face of global warming. I also believe that the US should depend less on foreign fuel - especially by those of "hostile foreign governments."
8 - No. I struggle with this proposition because of my religious background. I strongly believe that the definition of marriage is a christian concept and under this concept, a marriage between same-sex couple is not valid under that belief. HOWEVER, I believe in equality and just because I believe the word "marriage" only applies to the Christian definition between a man and a woman, does not mean that it US's definition. In the US, I believe - it is the recognition between the commitment between two people and all the rights and benefits that they deserve as a couple. THEREFORE, I vote no, because 1) No one has the right to force their own personal belief on others 2) voting yes would mean I support the whole "separate but equal" bullshit which I don't 3) because I believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights as non same-sex couples. I wish that they could just abolish the word "marriage" and instead coin it as "union." Everyone would just get a union! I just have a problem with the word "marriage" - even though this country was founded to make sure that religious oppression does not happen, clearly the founding fathers along with many individuals, had this definition of marriage as between man and wife - a Christian notion. I don't know ... I would HATE to have to say that I don't believe that when two lesbians get married - that they're marriage is NOT a marriage because ... well, it is a marriage. It's just not a marriage under my definition of marriage. Perhaps I need to change my definition of marriage - stop thinking of it as a religious union and think of it just as a union between two people. Oh interesting ...
--
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
How about thinking about marriage the way California law thinks about it: as an economic institution. This is what California community property laws define marriage as. As such, we should separate any moral and religious views from the task asked of us at hand: a change in law. In sum, the law of God and the law of California are two separate entities. Indeed, by this reasoning, it's quite simple to believe, religiously, that men and men shouldn't marry, but also come to the comfortable conclusion that, as an economic institution, men and men can be married.
That being said, if men and men can exist on an equal level on an economic sense, why shouldn't their marriage be entitled to the same fundamental rights as straight couples. Agreed, No on 8.
As for Prop 4, the argument made is that people under 18 can make very rash decisions and therefore should have their abortion rights restricted is the very same reasoning found in the 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart case. Except in Carhart, the Court reasoned that adult women are in too emotional a state to make a reasonable decision about their own pregnancy, therefore their abortion rights regarding late term abortion must necessarily be restricted. On the Federal level, Roe v. Wade and the fundamental right to an abortion (through the fundamental right to privacy) is being turned into a shell of former self. While a very solid argument could be made that minors should not be entitled to the same medical rights as adults, I don't believe this is the road California should take for abortions. Agreed, No on 4.
I disagree that marriage is considered purely economic in California or anywhere else - to argue that it is means that civil union should be enough. But it's not. We have to recognize that the issue is much more complicated than that - and that's why it's so fraught. Honey, I am really happy and proud that you gave this the reasoned consideration it deserved (and extra happy that we ended up on the same side!). You are awesome =)
Apparently Prop 7 is so poorly written that although it's end sounds good, the way of getting there would be poorly managed and a waste of money.
Also it cuts out small energy producers in favor of the mega-companies like Enron.
Here's a list of opponents to Prop 7.
CA Democratic Party
CA Republican Party
CA Labor Federation
CA Taxpayers Assn
League of CA Cities
CA Solar Industry Assn
THE SIERRA CLUB
etc. etc.
I found that the Sierra Club being an opponent decided the issue for me.
Post a Comment