Re: Vote NO on Prop Eight

Article View: sac.general

Article #224

#224

From: Bill Z.
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:35

30 lines
3254 bytes

LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:

> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:19:07 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
>
>>Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
>>it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
>>conveys the same rights as marriage".  Our system of goverment does
>>not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
>>and certainly not optimal decisions.
>
>>Also, Proposition 8 was introduced well before the California Supreme
>>Court decision, so your claim, "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," is completely bogus because it violates
>>causality - a physical law.  They had enough signatures to qualify
>>for the ballot before the California Supreme Court ruled - those
>>signatures were validated afterwards, but that is a mere formality.
>
>
> The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
> Live with it.

Try to answer what was said, not something you just made up.

The majority has no right to rule on what is factually right or wrong:
if the majority decides that the value of pi is 3.2 (which apparently
the Indiana state legislature once tried to do and almost got it
passed - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aux/pi.html), Euclidean
geometry will not change.  Nor will the laws of physics.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <877i7omorr.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!flpi089.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!flpi088.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com!flpi107.ffdc.sbc.com!nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com.POSTED!79589bed!not-for-mail

References:

<c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com> <ge88u2$75q$1@snarked.org> <871vy0mekt.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <geahc1$e50$2@snarked.org> <87iqrbt7xu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <9f0fc340-a744-43d3-83c2-3392ace12879@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <8763n9x55g.fsf@pacbell.net> <c06lg4hal7ik8j1sl7e5oj87n3ad3arfuv@4ax.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Thread: 10a89e,af9442ae69b6f64f
X-Google-Thread: f824f,af9442ae69b6f64f
X-Google-Thread: 102fd5,af9442ae69b6f64f
X-Google-Thread: 107d03,af9442ae69b6f64f
X-Google-Thread: 10d50a,af9442ae69b6f64f
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a89e,gidf824f,gid102fd5,gid107d03,gid10d50a,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!flpi089.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!flpi088.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com!flpi107.ffdc.sbc.com!nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com.POSTED!79589bed!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sac.general,ba.general,ba.politics,la.general,scruz.general
Subject: Re: Vote NO on Prop Eight
References: <c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com> <ge88u2$75q$1@snarked.org> <871vy0mekt.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <geahc1$e50$2@snarked.org> <87iqrbt7xu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <9f0fc340-a744-43d3-83c2-3392ace12879@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <8763n9x55g.fsf@pacbell.net> <c06lg4hal7ik8j1sl7e5oj87n3ad3arfuv@4ax.com>
From: nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
Message-ID: <877i7omorr.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UvLyb2LccTeR8UpApZuF8tpkjT4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lines: 32
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.233.20.69
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com 1225488590 ST000 209.233.20.69 (Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:29:50 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:29:50 EDT
Organization: at&t http://my.att.net/
X-UserInfo1: Q[R_PJONOJVYSP\Y@BCD^VX@WB]^PCPDLXUNNHLHQAVTUZ]CLNTCPFK[WDXDHV[K^FCGJCJLPF_D_NCC@FUG^Q\DINVAXSLIFXYJSSCCALP@PB@\OS@BITWAH\CQZKJMMD^SJA^NXA\GVLSRBD^M_NW_F[YLVTWIGAXAQBOATKBBQRXECDFDMQ\DZFUE@\JM
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:35:20 -0700

Reply to Parent Message