🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill Z. wrote:
> "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:
>
> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:871vy0mekt.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> >> "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:
> >> > "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com...
> >> >> Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't allow discrimination against
> >> >> anyone!
> >> >
> >> > Vote Yes on Prop 8.  They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
> >> > "registered domestic partnership."  We don't need more laws.
> >>
> >> If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
> >> vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)
> >
> > Actually, it doesn't. All it does is clarify a definition.
>
> Wrong - it eliminates a right that people now have (whether you agree
> with that right or not), and the wording of the proposition is not
> a definition.
>
> You can't wiggle out of it - if you say "we don't need more laws",
> then you should vote against Proposition 8 because it in fact creates
> a new law.  If you don't like the conclusion, maybe you should do the
> sensible thing and change your premise. :-)
>
> >> Humor about poor reasoning aside, the California Supreme Court
> >> addressed the issue of whether a domestic partnership conveys
> >> the same rights as marriage and concluded that it does not.
> >> Read the decision for details.
> >
> > Courts can be wrong.
>
> The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
> random usenet posters.

But it's less likely to be right than a majority of voters, as
in this particular case. Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.