Who/What Did You Vote For And Why?
scooterblue
Join Date: 2003-05-20 Member: 16519Members
Join Date: 2003-05-20 Member: 16519Members
Comments
Seriously I decided to vote "anti-Bush" because of the patriot act, military commissions, iraq, etc. Unfortunately this blurs local politics and it's not always a sacrifice I'm willing to make, but this time, I had to vote on the wide issues. So it was D's for all. I believe many other people voted this way, which will help the Democrats. I'm not a Dem, but Bush is crap. Cheers!
Voted against parental notification for abortion, tracking devices for sex offenders, and a bunch of "take out billions of dollars of bonds and repay them 30 years later at twice the original amount" measures. Voted for tobacco tax and a tax on oil companies for alternative energy.
Edit: Oh, I almost forgot, I also voted against a badly worded measure intended to restrict the recent SCOTUS eminent domain ruling.
You want to see a real s**tstorm? Put a $2.60 per item tax on every low-carb, low-fat, low-calorie, 'Fatkins approved' or 'diet' item on the market. THEN see how people feel about it.
Of course it's fine to tax a segment of the population. Just so long as it isn't the person voting.
California, Democrat for the Senate and other high-profile positions, and Libertarian for most of the rest. Oh, and a big-###### NO on prop 86. Taxing a minority just because the governator can no longer dip into the road taxes to fund everything is BS. And an extra $2.60 PER PACK for cigarettes is outright ricockulous, when one of the main anti-smoking leaning points is that smoking costs so much. Well DUH, if the f**king tax is more than the pack of smokes! Of course it'll pass. Too many health-nazis in CA, who don't realize that minorities don't deserve that kind of unfair treatment.
You want to see a real s**tstorm? Put a $2.60 per item tax on every low-carb, low-fat, low-calorie, 'Fatkins approved' or 'diet' item on the market. THEN see how people feel about it.
Of course it's fine to tax a segment of the population. Just so long as it isn't the person voting.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, you know, because taxing an addicting drug is really comparable to taxing food...
Tobacco is a luxury item that's not really essential to any occupation and serves little utility other than personal gratification. If people quit smoking because it's too expensive, that's a <b>good</b> thing.
Fad foods are a luxury item, and are just as addictive as smoking, in most health nazis' minds. And just because you do not like to smoke does not give you any right to take money out of the pockets of those who do, especially as a conscious decision, in the privacy of their own homes. It is not YOUR place to say what someone can and cannot enjoy, or in this case who should pay extra just because the governor is having a bit of a money pinch.
Again. How would you feel if 'health foods' were taxed the same way? Never bothered to answer that bit.
Oh, and by the way. I quit smoking in January. But this is still an outrage. I don't care if it helps people to stop smoking; if they want to, they can quit. Given that packs are already up to $3 a pop, and $2 of that is ALREADY tax, adding on $2.60 MORE is just plain ridiculous. It's quite similar to the old tea taxes of the colonial days than anything else. Of course, given that smokers are already a minority, it's almost sure to pass.
I'm quite tempted to make a very decent profit by running to Vegas once a week and bringing back cartons to sell off tax-free. Even a hundred bucks in gas will be cheap, if I only bump the price of a pack by fifty cents. A carton will have the price bumped locally by $52. Selling off four cartons with half that would pay for my gas. And I'm certain that I can fit over a hundred cartons in the back of my car. Which would all sell like wildfire. As soon as it becomes profitable for a PRIVATE CITIZEN to import and sell something from a retail outlet in another state, is the point at which it will begin to happen. Oh, and that's not even factoring in any bulk discounts I might get for such a large monthly (or even biweekly, or more often) order. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
It's quite similar to the old tea taxes of the colonial days than anything else.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could always throw all your cigs into the river and refuse to buy more. That'd show the government.
And taxing smoking is comparable to taxing vanity or trend-oriented idiots. The 'bioorganic lettuce' is just as good as the other stuff. I understand that some people think gingko biloba or any of the other overhyped supplements will help them to lose weight/calm down/feel happier. So will an over the counter drug called sucrose tablets, otherwise known by the brand names of Placebol and Placebitin.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not so. When people buy vanity goods (I assume you mean health products, brand name clothes, and things), they buy them to be trendy or because they have some extra money and want to make some kind of free choice on what to use it for. The items are pretty elastic on the buyer's side, meaning they have a lot of alternatives. Say you tax the crap out of ephedra based diet pills. People can buy caffeine based pills and avoid the tax. If you tax diet pills in general, people just won't buy diet pills in general. What happens is you end up killing the industry your taxing.
Tobacco is an addictive drug. People have a biological <i>need</i> for it. It is very inelastic for buyers. If you tax tobacco, a great many more of the its users will continue to buy it then would if you taxed vanity goods. It's instant tax money. It's in fact <i>good</i> tax policy. The industry takes a minor hit, while the buyers will grumble and continue to buy. Government is infused with funds and continues to function. Society is served.
I similarly voted traditionally for the major seats - Republican for Governor and US Senator (both lost :/ ) and spread the rest of them through the Libertarian and US Taxpayer parties. Fortunately, there were quite a few options for "third" party candidates here in Michigan.
We also had 5 proposals to vote for which I thought were interesting:
Prop 1 was a Michigan constitutional amendment to create a protected fund for money gathered through fees like hunting licenses and state park entrances fees. For a number of years now that money has been <strike>stolen</strike> borrowed by the legislature to pay for things other than the conservation and recreation sites where it's meant to be used. I voted YES and it passed 80%-20%
Prop 2 would ban what is known as Affirmative Action for certain state government organizations. State funded universities could not select students based on race and state contracts cannot be given priority to minority groups. I voted YES and it passed 60%-40%
Prop 3 would create a state regulated hunting season on mourning doves. I voted YES and it failed 30%-70%
Prop 4 would establish a constitutional amendment that prohibits the government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private developments (Michigan laws already prevent it but this would prevent the possibility of that law being changed/removed). I voted YES and it passed 80%-20%
Prop 5 would have established mandatory school funding levels. The level of funding would increase by a specified percentage year over year regardless of revenue levels. I voted NO and it failed 40%-60%
As for tobacco taxes...
If tobacco is so bad for people that it requires increasing taxes to give people incentive to quit, then why doesn't the government just outlaw it completely? (hint: the answer involves a $ and lots of zeros)
To sum up, I'll paste a quote from the home page of <a href="http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/" target="_blank">Walter E Williams</a>:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The state -- or, to make matters more concrete, the government -- consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods.
-- H.L. Mencken <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EDIT: PS I also quick smoking last December. It was the second best decision I ever made. Though, I do get colds more often.
Prop 1 was a Michigan constitutional amendment to create a protected fund for money gathered through fees like hunting licenses and state park entrances fees. For a number of years now that money has been <strike>stolen</strike> borrowed by the legislature to pay for things other than the conservation and recreation sites where it's meant to be used. I voted YES and it passed 80%-20%
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That seems like a neat piece of legislation. It's funny how so many minute restrictions make it into state constitutions. Somehow the word "constitution" doesn't bring to mind restrictions on how park entrance fees are used. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> California had a similar measure regarding gasoline tax being used to fund transportation improvements only, but I'm not sure whether it passed. I can't find a source anywhere. I voted against it largely because I didn't have time to fully research it ahead of time and the summaries I had found didn't make it clear whether the limitations would permit gas taxes to pay for public transportation.
I voted Democrat pretty much across the board. The result I was happiest with was California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Her campaign was largely based on ensuring that electronic voting machines use open source software and have a voter-verified paper trail. The fact that a candidate actually understood what open source software is was enough to get my enthusiastic vote.
I voted for the cigarette tax increase in California. My reasoning is that cigarettes are a classic example of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_externality" target="_blank">negative externality.</a> When someone smokes they make life a little worse for everyone they are around, and I think its fair to expect them to contribute to the public good for that privilege. Requiring people to smoke in private isn't enough. Some evenings I have to leave my apartment because a guy somewhere below me smokes on his porch.
There was another ballot initiative requiring GPS tracking of felony sex offenders that I was a little conflicted on. I'd be all for increasing sentencing, but it seems wrong to me to keep pestering someone after they've served their time. Tracking someone's whereabouts for the rest of their life doesn't feel like the right way to reduce recidivism, although I don't have a better solution.
There are a lot more political parties in California than I was used to in Ohio.
Cigarettes ALREADY have taxation. They are taxed roughly $2 per pack currently. Prop 86 brings this up to a $4.60 per pack tax, with the actual cost of the tobacco sitting at around a dollar a pack.
Smoking does not have any effect on your life. If it bothers you, and they are not smoking in a marked 'no smoking' section, feel free to move somewhere else, as the inconvenience is on your end. Otherwise I could use the same arguments against your own preferred music, preferred foods, or preferred recreational activities.
If 'fad foods' (diet pills, anything labelled 'organic' or 'free range' or 'homeopathic', any dietary supplements not approved by the FDA) received the same tax, the same people voting for the cig tax would be overwhelmingly against it. Again. <b>Your opinion of MY health doesn't mean jack. If I decide to kill my lungs, YOU should have zero say in it.</b>
And again. I plan to perform private runs to Vegas in the near future. Even a very small stocking run would save a good number of my friends a lot of money, and make me a good chunk of change in the process. So suck it. Nevada gets the tax money instead, because they aren't asking OVER FOUR TIMES the cost of the product IN TAX ALONE, which is outright ridiculous and reprehensible.
Voted against the sex offender tracking and notification bill. If someone's done their time, they've paid their debt to society. Clean slate, f**k you over-paranoid mothers. If you don't want your kids to get stolen, BE A PARENT and keep a goddamn eye on them like a responsible parent SHOULD BE.
Anyone else find it funny that everyone now has to have pre-wrapped candy for Halloween, but there has NEVER, not even ONCE been an incident of a child recieving poisoned candy or razor blade/glass-shard filled fruit from trick-or-treating. The few times it's happened? It's always been a family member or relative that's planted the tainted treat.
So in Denmark, tobacco tax makes perfect sense. Elsewhere, where every man pays for his own frailty, I can see how there are arguments against it.
<b>Your opinion of MY health doesn't mean jack. If I decide to kill my lungs, YOU should have zero say in it.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, because by smoking near me you also affect my health.
Smoking does not have any effect on your life. If it bothers you, and they are not smoking in a marked 'no smoking' section, feel free to move somewhere else, as the inconvenience is on your end. Otherwise I could use the same arguments against your own preferred music, preferred foods, or preferred recreational activities.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It has plenty of effect on my life as I already outlined. Every time someone is smoking around me, it makes my life worse. That's a negative externality. I don't know how things are in California because I haven't lived here long enough, but everywhere else I have lived you can't go to a club without breathing in other people's cigarette smoke.
<b>Your opinion of MY health doesn't mean jack. If I decide to kill my lungs, YOU should have zero say in it.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Besides health care costs, 2nd hand smoke and littering... no, i guess it doesn't.
Clubs here in CA have smoking areas, usually out back or on a second floor patio away from the air inlets. There is no smoking permitted inside the facilities... same law that had smoking in bars banned about ten years ago, as a health hazard to the waitresses.
Oh, and flicking cigarette butts is littering, and a ticketable offense. Responsible smokers (as I formerly was) carry portable folding ashtrays, which hold the spent butts and ash quite nicely, and are instantly pocketable. In a pinch, an Altoids tin also works. I would also use my cigarette case in a pinch to hold spent butts until I could find a trash can, if I was lacking my ashtray (the ash is actually beneficial to plant life in the area, just as an FYI).
Again. The whole mentality is 'The tax doesn't affect me, and <b>I</b> want people to not smoke, so I feel justified in levying and furthering an already unjust tax on a minority'. The taxes already imposed are ridiculous. This only expounds them.
Also, the tea was not paid for. I'd have no problem in dumping a few semi-fuls of cigarettes into the coastline water, reservoirs, and rivers of the area. It'd kill a good chunk of wildlife, reek like all hell (if anyone's ever tried the 'carton of cigs in a mayo jar with water' stop-smoking trick, you know what I mean) and definitely send a message. I'm all for it. When do we start.
Cigarette companies targeting minors to replace smokers who are dying off? Good business decision. Taxing tobacco is about the same idea. Morality doesn't enter into it. Morality clouds a lot of issues since there are so many different kinds of it, but that doesn't seem to stop us from using it as a universal yard stick to measure all things around us.
The thing is most people aren't going to be like Tale and go driving across state lines to stock up on cigarettes. Most people are just going to choke down the cost.
Now, whether or not the voters get ###### off about such a tax and get it taken away is another matter entirely. Of course, if we're going to call ourselves a democracy, or at least a democratic republic, we need to realize that in democracy majority wins.
You're free so long as you accept the responsibility for your free choices. Responsibilities such as going to prison for a crime, paying a fine when you litter, or paying high taxes for goods the majority has deemed "morally offensive."
Edit: In reply to Rob:
What if the majority deems homosexuality morally offensive? Should it be taxed? The biggest issue with democratic government is that the majority isn't certain to make the right decisions. The problem with undemocratic government is that you're not certain to get the right minority to be in charge.
But you admit that under danish conditions, as explained above, tobacco tax makes sense, no?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure who you're asking, but I'll answer you anyway. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Yes, in a system where your health costs are taken care of by the government, it's only makes sense for the government to charge you when you deliberately harm yourself.
Do you have taxes for recovering suicidal people, too? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> Sorry, that's a horrible, horrible joke.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Edit: In reply to Rob:
What if the majority deems homosexuality morally offensive? Should it be taxed? The biggest issue with democratic government is that the majority isn't certain to make the right decisions. The problem with undemocratic government is that you're not certain to get the right minority to be in charge.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if they think that taxes are the way to go, sure. I'd rather think they'd go for something more extreme. But in any case, let's be thankful that the majority does <i>not</i> legally deem homosexuality morally offensive.
Be careful when using the word "right." I throw it out by accident sometimes, myself. Right is a subjective term. Who says that the majority's decisions are "right" or "wrong?" You? Me? God? Nah, generally the Majority says whether their decisions are right or wrong and they hardly ever think that way they think is wrong. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
So with a majority rules government, what's right is what's popular, regardless of an individual's personal feelings. The bright side is that through nothing more than sheer force of personality, you have the chance in such a government to change popular opinion. You're "right" becomes everyone's "right."
[edit 20 billion]
Oh, and a tax on homosexuality would be difficult and costly to enforce, because you have to first prove it. Bad business decision. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Short version, if you choose to stand near someone who is smoking, in a non no-smoking area, that is your own damned fault and you can move. What kind of hubris do you have to impose yourself on another person, who has taken the trouble to find an area where smoking IS permitted (areas which are rapidly shrinking in CA anyway), and then b***h about second-hand smoke?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You expect me to move out of my apartment because someone is smoking below me? If they can smoke without forcing me to breath it, they are welcome to. There should be no tax on nicotine patches or gum. Hell, I'd love to see half of cigarette tax money put into subsidizing nicotine patches and gum. The question comes down to this, does a person have more of a right to smoke than I have a right to not smoke. I think I have more of a right to not smoke, so if they are effectively going to force me to smoke, they should have to contribute to the general welfare to do it.
Also, I don't know where you live, but around here most apartment and condo complexes have strict non-smoking rules in the building. If you're that sensitive to smoke (and I've known a few people that are) I'd highly encourage you to move into one with a blanket ban. They are NOT difficult to find.
On one hand, we have a defeated ban on abortion <u>even in cases of rape or incest</u> (and therefore even in cases of incestuous rape. Your uncle rapes you, you carry the child to term - or get a clotheshanger), a ban that would have been a blatant infringement on the rights of women. The majority saw this for what it was and said no.
On the other hand, we have several bans on homosexual marriage, measures designed to ensure that fundamental rights are not granted to a minority. We have a word for that: Discrimination. This is akin to forcing people of a certain skin colour to sit at the back of the bus, and the majority voted for it.
To return to the argument about whether the majority can be trusted to make the right decision, here's an article that presents both sides of the coin: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6199344,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6199344,00.html</a>
On one hand, we have a defeated ban on abortion <u>even in cases of rape or incest</u> (and therefore even in cases of incestuous rape. Your uncle rapes you, you carry the child to term - or get a clotheshanger), a ban that would have been a blatant infringement on the rights of women. The majority saw this for what it was and said no.
On the other hand, we have several bans on homosexual marriage, measures designed to ensure that fundamental rights are not granted to a minority. We have a word for that: Discrimination. This is akin to forcing people of a certain skin colour to sit at the back of the bus, and the majority voted for it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, well you can't expect things to change all at once your favor, ya know. I figure what the homosexual advocates need is a leader who can do for them what Dr. King did for racial minorities. Pretty much all of us agree that his work was for the better... though I have some reservations about whether or not we've overcompensated.
In any case, you seem to have missed my point. Morality and rights are relative to time and place. In a democracy, they are relative to the majority's ideas, and the majority's will to defend those ideas.
You are free because most of us think freedom is a good thing, and enough of us are willing to toe the line to keep it around.
Minorities are the bringers of change, and they do this by gradually swaying the majority to their side. So, saying "should the majority be trusted to make the right legal and ethical decisions," is a bit of a lame statement: the majority is in charge in democracy, therefore what they think is ethical and legal are for all intents ethical and legal for the democracy. Trust really isn't a factor.
Not that its a BAD assumption, but its an important one: You are assuming that there is an independant, external, objective moral framework that defines certain things as "Right", and other things as "Wrong." The obvious next question is, where does this moral framework come from? Who defines it?
I'm not going to question you on this assumption, because I happen to agree with you. I just wanted to illustrate it before moving on to the next step, becuase its too often swept under the rug by people who don't like the answer.
---
Ok, the next step is, assuming there is an objective "right" and "wrong", how likely are the majority to reach that "right" conclusion when making laws? And there's definately plenty of room for them to make mistakes and enact "wrong" laws. But I would suggest that this is not inherently more likely for a Democracy than for any other form of government. A single dictatorial ruler can make 10 times as many wrong decisions if he wants to, even though you could also get a benevolent ruler who makes mostly right decisions. Its a roll of the dice. Democracy just rolls the dice more often, while a dictatorship may only roll the dice once every 50 years.
You could try ruling with a small governing elite, who is presumably better educated than the masses. Unfortunately, in practice that doesn't wind up guaranteeing anything. A small elite will inevitably develop an insulated culture of its own, and inside that insulated culture theres a good chance they will become very elitist towards the people. Then they start making decisions that take away peoples freedoms because the Elites know better than you whats good for you. Or think they do. Not to mention their "superior education" doesn't always prevent them from showing great stupidity anyway. So the elite class still comes up with a variety of "wrong" decisions.
-----
In the end, any form of government you choose will make some portion of "wrong" decisions. In fact, I think the way our system is put together is pretty brilliant and will probably lead to a greater portion of "right" decisions than most systems would. Because we combine all 3 modes and let them fight each other for power. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Of course, there's still some problems with the system, starting with Gerrymandering and our absurdly high incumbent re-election rate. But simply saying you don't like Majority rule, because YOU would have done things differently had YOU been the Dictator in power, doesn't cut it. A lot of people disagree with you.
I'm at work, and we're all around someone's office trying to decide where to go for lunch. We take a vote, and a majority of us vote for the pizza joint downtown. The underlying assumption is that we enjoy eachother's company and want to come to a consensus on a place to go <i>together</i>. Now, the losers in the vote break off from us and go to the place they voted for instead of abiding by the majority rules decision.
What was the point in voting to begin with?
This, I think, is the only inherant problem with democracy. Even if a diverse group of individuals can work out a joint decision, it does not guarentee that each member will abide by the decision.
You can assign morale values and laws to this argument if you like. Personally I think it just clouds the issue. But don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that I don't have morales, quite the contrary. I simply believe that relativity applies to all things, and my right is not necessarily the only right. What's important to me is to find a right that I like and to stick with it. If that brings me into conflict with someone else who has chosen a different right, well, how is that different than any other day? At least now I don't have to hate him for it.
Ok lolfighter, I'm not going to question your assumption of an external moral framework, but Rob is. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Feel free to pick your target for your comeback, since we're arguing basically totally different things, despite reaching the same conclusion in the end.
And on the other hand you suddenly have five states that put segregationist laws into place, forbidding a large portion of the population from marrying simply because of their sexuality. This is a <i>violation</i> of the values that your country claims to stand for, that all men are created equal, that none shall be different before the law, that everyone has the right to pursue happiness if they do not hinder the pursuit of happiness of others. When these five states enact laws so contrary to your country's basic, central values, is it not the responsibility of your central government to step in and slap them down? Should they not have stepped in before this was even put to the vote, banning the amendments as being in violation of the constitution?
Whether subjective or not, your country has a certain code that it claims to follow when enacting laws. I say claims, because obviously, some of your states do not. And your central government lacks the guts to do what it should be doing, what it is sworn to do.
And actually, the majority was in favor of granting them the same rights under a different name. But the ###### rights activists wouldn't settle, and it came to a head. Obviously, marriage is still valued enough to think that it would be defamed by allowing same sex versions.
Personally, I agree. I, however, washed my hands of this world long ago. So, I'm all for the social experiment that it would be, even though I know the negative effects it will bring will be attributed else where.
For the record: I'm mostly a moderate, but I lean conservative because I don't like the culture the left seems to breed.
And on the other hand you suddenly have five states that put segregationist laws into place, forbidding a large portion of the population from marrying simply because of their sexuality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are somewhat mis-informed here. The laws are not new, or unique to those 5 states--44 out of 50 states already have laws banning g.a.y marriage. All of the states voting on marriage amendments already had laws that said the same thing, but now they have been made amendments because amendments have more legal power than laws do. With those 5 amendments, we now have 25 states with marriage amendments, and another 3 more where the vote is still being re-counted.
No suddenness. This is a country-wide, slow moving trend.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> This is a <i>violation</i> of the values that your country claims to stand for, that all men are created equal, that none shall be different before the law, that everyone has the right to pursue happiness if they do not hinder the pursuit of happiness of others. When these five states enact laws so contrary to your country's basic, central values, is it not the responsibility of your central government to step in and slap them down? Should they not have stepped in before this was even put to the vote, banning the amendments as being in violation of the constitution?
Whether subjective or not, your country has a certain code that it claims to follow when enacting laws. I say claims, because obviously, some of your states do not. And your central government lacks the guts to do what it should be doing, what it is sworn to do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How shall we approach this? From a legal standpoint or a moral standpoint?
From a moral standpoint, I very much doubt I am going to convince you that my moral framework is more correct than yours, so all I can do is point out that a lot of people disagree with you. Does that make them right? Not necessarily, but it doesn't necessarily make you right either. And while there probably is one truly correct answer, as long as we don't <i>know</i> that answer, the best we can do is to assume that the majority is more likely to be right than the minority.
From a legal standpoint, none of these laws are discriminatory. They DO consider all men created equal. And they give all men the EQUAL right to marry...women. They equally deny all men the right to marry other men.
Restricting marriage doesn't interefere with the pursuit of happiness either. 2 g.a.y lovers can be perfectly happy with each other without needing to be married first, can't they? Single people can be happy too. Marriage is primarily a religious institution to begin with, but the state has chosen to recognize and support it. Thats an optional benefit though, not required for the Pursuit of Happiness.
In any case, we DO have a system set up for making sure all these laws match our constitution: Its called the Supreme Court. We don't the the federal government just "slap them [the states] down", because our Government is designed to allow States a lot of independance. But you can bet that many of these laws will be sent through the proper legal channels and appealed to the Supreme Court, and if the legal experts decide they are Unconstitutional, they will be overturned.