I'm surprised nobody has given props to California yet...

[javaguru]

i'm a simpleton, you hold a vote and the people are in favor of something, then that's how it is.
if you are afraid of the outcome of the vote, then don't waste money/time holding a proposition.
BS man

Propositions are one of the political decisions California chose to implement that helped get them into their current position; I'll cite the Roman Republic as my source.

It isn't an American principle based on principles the founders imagined....The difference between a republic and a democracy. The founders created the Constitution specifically to avoid democracy, a tyranny of the majority, and recognize basic human rights and prevent a tyranny of the majority. That's why they created the electoral college to elect the president, the state houses were supposed to elect the senators and the only direct vote was for the House of Representatives.

Give me enough money and I can get a proposition passed that bans anyone with a "bino" username on ef from marrying anyone other than a one legged Danish whore with three nipples.

 

[PICK3]

The Mo's at work better not expect any fucking wedding gifts

just sayin'

 

[javaguru]

The Mo's at work better not expect any fucking wedding gifts

just sayin'

Just RSVP you won't attend and send them a cheap ass gift like you do with the str8 people that piss you off by scheduling their marriage on one of your vacation days.

 

[chesty]

Our country is fucked!

 

[javaguru]

Propositions are one of the political decisions California chose to implement that helped get them into their current position; I'll cite the Roman Republic as my source.

It isn't an American principle based on principles the founders imagined....The difference between a republic and a democracy. The founders created the Constitution specifically to avoid democracy, a tyranny of the majority, and recognize basic human rights and prevent a tyranny of the majority. That's why they created the electoral college to elect the president, the state houses were supposed to elect the senators and the only direct vote was for the House of Representatives.

Give me enough money and I can get a proposition passed that bans anyone with a "bino" username on ef from marrying anyone other than a one legged Danish whore with three nipples.

I forgot to mention the ballot proposition that allowed a small city manager, around 40k people, to pass an initiative that circumvented state law on max compensation to get him a 800k a year salary plus a 600k a year pension payout. Once it as made public the will of the people was outrage but the ballot initiative was passed "by the people" and "the people's will."

 

[nangiggles]

I think it's not much of a semantics issue as previously mentioned, right now Costa Rica has 2 laws being studied:
- Same sex civil union law
- live in partnership law

All it does is allow co-signing debts, allow pentions, inheritance of assets and couple other rights that "regular married" folks have, and people are still fighting in saying it shouldnt pass, I dont get the whole fucking deal, if a person lives with another person it's a partnership, if they spend time together and make a life together they are entitled to certain things, it's called rights and all should have them regardless of sexual orientation and gender... anyone who can monogamously live with another fuck and tolerate their shit deserves credit, relationships are hard...

 

[75th]

And still, nobody has been able to give an explanation as to why partners getting the benefits of a partnership is a bad thing.

 

[nangiggles]

@75th: it's not, it's only fair! but thats just me.

 

[mrplunkey]

And still, nobody has been able to give an explanation as to why partners getting the benefits of a partnership is a bad thing.

It's a bad thing because it isn't the government's role to subsidize relationships. It was a bad thing years ago when they started it for heterosexual couples and it's a bad idea to do it today with homosexual ones.

I understand the original logic -- but it was flawed. The idea was to encourage the formation of long-term legal/social/religious relationships because it was good for society as a whole. But guess what? It isn't the government's job to do social engineering whether it is subsidizing marriages, mortgages, low-fat foods, domestic soybeans, smoking, gas mileage, solar panels or any other issue.

 

[75th]

Im not talking about that. Im talking about things like partners receiving appropriate social security (survivor) benefits.