We Said It Before, We’ll Say It Again

California Proposition 22 stated:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Sounds clear and unequivocal to me, but apparently perversions of a sexual nature tend to affect the linguistic comprehension ability as well.

In November 2000 the measure was approved by a resounding majority of votes, 61.4%, a landslide no matter how you look at it.

I was involved in the debate over Prop 22 due in part to my participation in a debate/speech class at the local Junior College during the Fall 2000 semester.

California is often considered a Socialist state, but when you get down to serious issues, there is a significant and vocal Conservative, Classical Liberal, and Christian population which have and will be mobilized.

When the California Supreme Court swept away the true voice of the people in June by declaring the words of Prop 22 invalid, the fire was lit once again.

A ballot iniative has been submitted again, with the exact same wording as Prop 22 because it is strong and unquestionable, despite what the California Supreme Court claims.

Prop 8 has received an incredible level of support across the state, submitting nearly twice the number of signatures needed to quality for the November Ballot.

The presidential contenders have weighed in on this critical issue: Barak Hussein Obama is against it and for Homosexual Marriage, while John McCainis for Prop 8 and supports Real Marriage.

Those who would expand the government and silence the vote of the people filed a lawsuit to block this initiative, which was just denied.

JPennStar: What is your take on the pulse of the people regarding this initiative? Is it generating the buzz that existed for Prop 22?

Work hard. Pray, but don’t stop just with that. California needs to be pulled back to it’s mooring once again.

8 thoughts on “We Said It Before, We’ll Say It Again”

  1. Again, another right-wing writer has left out the most informative bit of information about Prop. 22. Yes, the vote in favor of the initiative was 61%. Of the people who voted. Some facts… the population of California in the year 2000 was 33.8 million. 7.5 million people voted on Prop. 22. 4.61 million voted yes, 2.9 million voted no. That means a mere 13% of the state’s population voted yes. That’s hardly a “landslide”. 87% of the state did not consider Prop. 22 worth voting on at all. (Yes, I know… not all of the 87% are eligible voters. Still, the yes vote cannot be declared “a landslide”)
    The Supreme Court did it’s constitutional duty. Once a case worked it’s way through the state’s legal system, they ruled Prop. 22 unconstitutional. I invite you to read the ruling, and point out where the state’s highest court was not legally correct in their determination. If you can’t do that, let’s not support the idea that a “majority vote” can vote in discrimination.
    How about you folks from outside our state let us settle our legal issues, and see whether or not the state falls into the ocean on our own. You do that, and we’ll resist trying to tell you how to run your states.

  2. A correction on my numbers…. the 87% is incorrect. 22% of the population voted, whether yes or no, leaving 78% not considering the initiative worth voting on.

  3. Thanks for visiting, Jim, and clarifying the purpose of QueerVisalia.com.

    For my response to your assertions on the numbers of Prop 22, I’ll simply copy portions of my comment on your original article:

    In a Republic or a Democracy, it’s the majority of votes, not the majority of people, who count.

    Those who don’t vote when they are able and legitimate voters cannot cry foul.

    Similarly, it is misleading to count them as being anything except and exact extrapolation of those who did vote, anything else is reading into the available information more than can be justly determined.

    Further, regarding wording and your claims that sentence construction was obviously loaded: a common fallacy is assuming we and our ideologues are the ones without bias. This is false, we each labor under our own assumptions and when we read something we do not agree with it generally appears the writer has constructed his words in such a way to construe the facts in their favor.

    The statement “61% majority vote” is a bare telling of the facts as we have them.

    http://queervisalia.com/2008/06/22/lies-damn-lies-statistics-and-proposition-22/#comment-538

  4. RE: Discrimination:

    America is currently a Democracy, at least in the function of the initiative process in California, where the majority of voters do indeed get to do as they please.

    Right or wrong, this does become law.

    The Supreme Court and all inferior courts have a responsibility defined in the US and States Constitutions and Articles do apply the law to specific cases.

    They do not have the ability to strike down a law as “unconstitutional”.

    If a law is unjust or wrong, the process is for the legislature and/or people to repeal the law or modify it into a state of Justice.

    There are laws I disagree with, many of them. But I will not personally seek to remove those laws by abuse of the judicial system, it is not right, and two wrongs do not make a right.

    Yes, I am an idealist. American was drawn into being by pragmatic idealists.

  5. I find it interesting that you seem to always refer to Obama as “Barak Hussein Obama”. First off, you misspelled his first name and left off the suffix. It should be “Barack Hussein Obama II”. What seems very odd to me is that you refer to McCain as “John McCain” and not “John Sidney McCain III”. Is there a reason that you throw in Obama’s middle name and not McCain’s? Are there other Barack Obamas out there that you wanted to differentiate from? Surely the name John McCain is more common than Barack Obama. I’d just like to know your motivation for doing this.

    Starbix
    “Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

    P.S.
    Hey Jim!

  6. It’s his whole name, he ought to be proud of the whole thing.

    John McCain has always been just “John McCain”, while Barak has indeed been sensitive about many things: his ears, his name, his church, his family. Way too sensitive.

    I’m either doing him a favor by toughening him (though I entertain no delusions he might actually come across my third-rate blog), exposing his immaturity by remaining sensitive to it.

  7. Hey, i’m a novice news junkie. Just came across your site looking for cali. prop 8 info. enjoy reading what you have to say. congrats on the marriage. my husband and I have been married for 26 years, 7 children. All worth it. Hard, oh yes. Staying married in not for the faint of heart. Having children is an E-ticket ride at Disneyland.

  8. Debbie, welcome to the news junkie world :).

    And thank you for those kind words and encouragement. I myself am the 2nd of 7 children and my parents have been married nearly 30 years. I hope to model my relationship after theirs.

    Google continues to surprise me, ranking ipandora.net articles on the first page of so many searches, and I thank you for visiting and commenting.

Leave a Reply