# California Decriminalization Proposition on November ballot



## uggmaster (Sep 29, 2008)

Did none of you registered California voters out there read your voter pamphlets yet? 

Proposition 5 in the November 2008 California elections reduces possession of less than an ounce of marijuana to an infraction, like a traffic ticket, instead of a misdemeanor. It also diverts non-violent drug offenders out of prison and into drug treatment programs.

The net fiscal effect is projected to be positive with a cost of about $1 billion to set up more drug treatment facilities that is offset by the $1 billion saved by not incarcerating all of these people. 

Read it for yourself: California Proposition 5 (200 - Ballotpedia

I think it's a step in the right direction, less money spent to imprison stoners, even if it means more money wasted to attempt to educate them.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Sep 29, 2008)

Wow, it made it to the ballot? I'm so happy for you guys in CA. I hope it passes. More power to you !!!


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 29, 2008)

I was just beginning to go through our ballot this morning. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## crazedtimmy (Sep 30, 2008)

Only in cali!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## koolhand77 (Sep 30, 2008)

crazedtimmy said:


> Only in cali!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


MA too Vote yes on number 2.


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 30, 2008)

And PLEASE vote down Prop. 8. I'm pissed enough as it is that it actually got onto the ballot, so let's please vote it down. It's unconstitutional to take away rights in my opinion.


----------



## uggmaster (Oct 4, 2008)

Indeed yes on 8 and no on 5 is my vote and i hope enough of you agree to make something happen.


----------



## Alpine farmer (Oct 4, 2008)

fuck yes!!!!!1 i might acutally not move outa CA


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 4, 2008)

pot yes, gay marriage no.


----------



## sb101 (Oct 4, 2008)

already read everything, but thanks for the public service announcement even through all the condensation, i understand your wanting to educate the public 

VOTE YES on the high speed rail!!! i want to be able to get from LA to SF without dealing with airport BS!


----------



## Alpine farmer (Oct 4, 2008)

fdd2blk said:


> pot yes, gay marriage no.


....

fdd that pisses me off.

what the fuck does it matter if gays get married..


come the fuck on...



it doesnt..

be more open minded..


(sorry had to go off my moms gay)


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Oct 5, 2008)

I thought gay marriage was already legal in CA? There was all that stuff about George Takai and Ellen both getting married to their S/O's? 

Gays should be allowed to marry and they should not be discriminated against by adoption agencies. Gays aren't known as breeders and there are plenty of kids that need adopted that gay couples would like to parent. I see it as a win/win. The world is overpopulated as it is.


----------



## Alpine farmer (Oct 5, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> I thought gay marriage was already legal in CA? There was all that stuff about George Takai and Ellen both getting married to their S/O's?
> 
> Gays should be allowed to marry and they should not be discriminated against by adoption agencies. Gays aren't known as breeders and there are plenty of kids that need adopted that gay couples would like to parent. I see it as a win/win. The world is overpopulated as it is.


ty i love you.

and it was then it got banned


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Oct 5, 2008)

So what it was legal for like a month or something? WTF?


----------



## GrowTech (Oct 5, 2008)

marijuana isn't the only drug im sure this has to do with. :\ yes 2 gay marriages though, they have just as much right to marry as straight.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 5, 2008)

Alpine farmer said:


> ....
> 
> fdd that pisses me off.
> 
> ...


i don't think it really needs to be taught in sex ed class. why wife and wife or husband and husband? men and women make babies. men and women become married to make babies (traditionally). it's kinda the law of nature. call me old fashioned.  

you don't have the right to bash me on the way i vote. i could rebut you with a bunch of gay bashing if you wish.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 5, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> So what it was legal for like a month or something? WTF?



it's legal right now. they want to BAN it.


----------



## Seamaiden (Oct 5, 2008)

uggmaster said:


> Indeed yes on 8 and no on 5 is my vote and i hope enough of you agree to make something happen.


WHAT? Did you actually read the measures? Because if you're saying that you think that people should still have mj offenses as more serious "crimes", misdemeanor instead of being reduced to an infraction, that's what voting no on 5 is. And if you're saying that we should make a constitutional amendment disallowing same-sex marriage, that's what voting yes on 8 is.


Alpine farmer said:


> ....
> 
> fdd that pisses me off.
> 
> ...


 If you vote in favor of Prop. 8 then you're voting to make a constitutional amendment that makes same-sex marriages illegal. I have not yet gotten to Prop. 8 (I'm on 6 right now), so I haven't yet read the language. Dave was telling me last night that this was in response to the SC ruling not only on same-sex marriage constitutionality, but that it went further to say that churches that refuse to marry partners of the same sex will lose their tax-exempt status. I figure WHY NOT? Our state is broke and has to borrow money from the feds, we've got churches that are practically cities, why not have them kick into the general fund kitty now? Can you guess which way I'll be voting?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 5, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> WHAT? Did you actually read the measures? Because if you're saying that you think that people should still have mj offenses as more serious "crimes", misdemeanor instead of being reduced to an infraction, that's what voting no on 5 is. And if you're saying that we should make a constitutional amendment disallowing same-sex marriage, that's what voting yes on 8 is.
> 
> If you vote in favor of Prop. 8 then you're voting to make a constitutional amendment that makes same-sex marriages illegal. I have not yet gotten to Prop. 8 (I'm on 6 right now), so I haven't yet read the language. Dave was telling me last night that this was in response to the SC ruling not only on same-sex marriage constitutionality, but that it went further to say that churches that refuse to marry partners of the same sex will lose their tax-exempt status. I figure WHY NOT? Our state is broke and has to borrow money from the feds, we've got churches that are practically cities, why not have them kick into the general fund kitty now? Can you guess which way I'll be voting?




YES ON 8!!


oh yeah, a few gay marriages are gonna save the economy. 

california pot growers offered the arnold 1 BILLION dollars and he ignored them. Marijuana Dealers/Growers Offer Schwarzenegger One Billion Dollars | United States | Cannabis News

if it were about money wouldn't he have listened? legalize pot before we worry about who's banging who.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 5, 2008)

i'm in a 20 year relationship. there is no common law in cali. my wife visits me in the hospital. i just broke my leg and she was standing right next to my bed. we share the same medical insurance policy. we pay the same bills. being married legally or not doesn't mean a whole lot. i'm not missing out on anything, niether is my "wife".


----------



## Seamaiden (Oct 5, 2008)

fdd2blk said:


> YES ON 8!!
> 
> 
> oh yeah, a few gay marriages are gonna save the economy.
> ...





fdd2blk said:


> i'm in a 20 year relationship. there is no common law in cali. my wife visits me in the hospital. i just broke my leg and she was standing right next to my bed. we share the same medical insurance policy. we pay the same bills. being married legally or not doesn't mean a whole lot. i'm not missing out on anything, niether is my "wife".


And I have a cousin whose partner died of AIDS, and even though this man's family had disowned him because he was gay, they were legally able to take all his belongings. They were legally able to decide what happened to his remains and his estate, despite not having even spoken with him in 25 years. That is flat out wrong. I have a deep moral objection to anything that endeavors to take rights AWAY. I will be voting NO on 8, you can bet your ass on that one.

Now, I've been married three times now, done the health insurance paperwork and all that. Each and every time they're pretty clear, coverage is for spouses and family. So, unless your insurance is radically different, you are in essence defrauding the insurance company if you're telling them that you're legally married when you aren't.

Finally, you and your wife already have the RIGHT to marry if you choose. You two have CHOSEN not to. What gives you, or anyone, the RIGHT to tell others that they cannot marry simply because they are not in a heterosexual relationship?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 5, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> And I have a cousin whose partner died of AIDS, and even though this man's family has disowned him because he was gay, they were legally able to take all his belongings. They were legally able to decide what happened to his remains and his estate, despite not having even spoken with him in 25 years. That is flat out wrong. I have a deep moral objection to anything that endeavors to take rights AWAY. I will be voting NO on 8, you can bet your ass on that one.



guess he'd never heard of a "will". 
Will (law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)



it's not a gay issue for me. i'm not against people doing there thing. it's a man and women and marriage thing. is there nothing sacred anymore? nothing left in this world unchanged? so what do you want to call it when a male and female devote there lives to each to procreate children in the name of the species. it is it's own thing. a man and women devoting their lives to each other and "making" babies, not adopting but actually CREATING NEW LIFE. what will you call that?


----------



## Alpine farmer (Oct 5, 2008)

fdd2blk said:


> i don't think it really needs to be taught in sex ed class. why wife and wife or husband and husband? men and women make babies. men and women become married to make babies (traditionally). it's kinda the law of nature. call me old fashioned.
> 
> you don't have the right to bash me on the way i vote. i could rebut you with a bunch of gay bashing if you wish.


sorry fdd :d i was on lortab.

but my mothers gay so thats why i went off..

and it should be tought because it how some people are. eveyone should know

marrige is not only a actof love , and a safety for prooperty , 2 gays in love live together earn things together buy things together.

when one die's the other gets nothing because they arnt married but if a regualr couple does. they get what the both worked for.


----------



## Seamaiden (Oct 5, 2008)

fdd2blk said:


> guess he'd never heard of a "will".
> Will (law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


Frankly, that's a completely smart-ass and condescending response. Considering that both men had (have in the case of my still-living cousin) advanced degrees, I'd be willing to bet that they'd heard of wills. Family still trumps "friends" in the court's eyes, though.


> it's not a gay issue for me. i'm not against people doing there thing. it's a man and women and marriage thing. is there nothing sacred anymore? nothing left in this world unchanged? so what do you want to call it when a male and female devote there lives to each to procreate children in the name of the species. it is it's own thing. a man and women devoting their lives to each other and "making" babies, not adopting but actually CREATING NEW LIFE. what will you call that?


Yes, you are wrapped up in the gay thing. Otherwise you wouldn't be so wrapped up in who's fucking whom. It's hypocritical of you to first state that you and your wife aren't married despite having made at least two children together (by my last count) and being together for 20 years and then ask if nothing is sacred anymore. Where you draw your line is different from where others draw their lines, and there are plenty of people who would say that you and your wife don't hold your relationship or the legitimacy of your children sacred, too. I'm not one of them, but you're picking and choosing your argument poorly here. 

This is about people's rights. People have a right to happiness and its pursuit as long as they infringe upon no one. So, how would my two dyke friends marrying be an imposition on you? You are supposing to first define marriage, and then going on to essentially rip it apart by your own living situation. I see that as cognitive dissonance.

I'm not bashing you for how you vote, either. I am calling you out, though, for being a hypocrite and endeavoring to take away the rights of an entire group of people to do their own thing and make themselves happy. A lot of people prefer to live according to the law, in that regard and in other regards. You don't have the right to tell them they can't or shouldn't, just as no one has a right to tell you you're fucked up for not committing to your wife and marrying her.  

It's all in your perspective, and yours comes off as straight homophobic. Is your marriage to your wife only about fucking and making babies, or is there something more to it? How about Dave and I? He can no longer reproduce, and soon neither will I. Is our marriage therefore not valid in your eyes because WE are not about making babies?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 5, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> Frankly, that's a completely smart-ass and condescending response. Considering that both men had (have in the case of my still-living cousin) advanced degrees, I'd be willing to bet that they'd heard of wills. Family still trumps "friends" in the court's eyes, though.
> Yes, you are wrapped up in the gay thing. Otherwise you wouldn't be so wrapped up in who's fucking whom. It's hypocritical of you to first state that you and your wife aren't married despite having made at least two children together (by my last count) and being together for 20 years and then ask if nothing is sacred anymore. Where you draw your line is different from where others draw their lines, and there are plenty of people who would say that you and your wife don't hold your relationship or the legitimacy of your children sacred, too. I'm not one of them, but you're picking and choosing your argument poorly here.
> 
> This is about people's rights. People have a right to happiness and its pursuit as long as they infringe upon no one. So, how would my two dyke friends marrying be an imposition on you? You are supposing to first define marriage, and then going on to essentially rip it apart by your own living situation. I see that as cognitive dissonance.
> ...


i have 1 child. i'm neutered. i chose not get get married. i never said it was required. if a man and a woman choose then fine. my choice is irrelevant in this. my wife and i aren't married. we are out NOTHING. we are perfectly happy. no need to demand our "maritial rights", whatever that is. you didn't address this. a will holds in court if done right. didn't some rich lady just leave all her money to her dog? and i'm pretty sure nore than one wife or husband has lost to oppisite family in will diputes. you can't say it only happens to gay people. i think your wrong about a lot of what you just said. in fact, your facts of me are waaaaay off. i have no need to ague them. i know who i am and where i've been. you obviously don't. 


"fucking and making babies"? is that what you and dave do? "fuck"? i'm sorry to hear that.  i hope some day you can experience "love". and do you need a piece of paper to prove it?

you said "dyke".


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Oct 5, 2008)

I want to know how you can be on the same insurance without being married? I can't have my own kids on mine because they are over 19 and not full time students.


----------



## Seamaiden (Oct 5, 2008)

Miss Hester, the only way you can do it is to lie to the insurance company. Health insurance availability on a family policy, at least through an employer, is usually restricted to spouses and under-age dependents. We've wanted to put Dave's dad on his insurance, but cannot because, despite the fact that he is our dependent, he is an adult and so must purchase separate insurance.


fdd2blk said:


> i have 1 child. i'm neutered. i chose not get get married. i never said it was required. if a man and a woman choose then fine. my choice is irrelevant in this. my wife and i aren't married. we are out NOTHING. we are perfectly happy. no need to demand our "maritial rights", whatever that is. you didn't address this. a will holds in court if done right. didn't some rich lady just leave all her money to her dog? and i'm pretty sure nore than one wife or husband has lost to oppisite family in will diputes. you can't say it only happens to gay people. i think your wrong about a lot of what you just said. in fact, your facts of me are waaaaay off. i have no need to ague them. i know who i am and where i've been. you obviously don't.
> 
> 
> "fucking and making babies"? is that what you and dave do? "fuck"? i'm sorry to hear that.  i hope some day you can experience "love". and do you need a piece of paper to prove it?
> ...


Fdd, I simply took your lead. If you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't have chosen that tack. And that tack included who is having sex with whom. I simply used what I saw as the same sort of language you decided to start with. Fucking, banging, semantically they're both pretty close. And that was one of the very first things you mentioned, along with homosexuality being touched upon in sex education class.

You made the argument that marriage is about men and women committing to having and raising children together. I brought up Dave and I because we are not making children anymore. I guessed at the number of kids you have because I remember you remarking about a son and I thought I recalled you commenting about a daughter, but that was quite some time ago. Is the number of children relevant to the concept, though?

What I am saying is that, irrespective of whether or not you and your wife choose to "make it official", any consenting adults should be able to marry _if they so choose_. Your implication that it is something profane is offensive to me on a very deep level. You did imply that when you said this, whether it was your intention or not.


fdd2blk said:


> is there nothing sacred anymore?


You're apparently trying to argue the point that allowing gays to marry will somehow not help the economy (I don't know where that one came from, but.. ok) and that anyone can enjoy the benefits of marriage without actually being married. This is incorrect. For if it _were_, then why would homosexuals be working so hard to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals?

What it comes down to, though, what you don't seem to get or accept or whatever it is that you're experiencing, is that the government has no right "defining" marriage as anything. If it simply must define it, and we live in a culture where it does, then it should only be between consenting adults. I will not even say it must only be between two adults, because a happy marriage can be had in many situations and, while not my thing, do not negatively impact me. I do not have the right to tell people that they don't have the right to be married to whomever they choose in whatever manner they choose. You, though, seem to think you do have that right. I disagree, vehemently.

You can make all the attempts to crack on my relationship and marriage that you want, which was indeed made official by a ceremony and words spoken and hugs and kisses and laughter and tears and pictures and the breaking of bread, and absolutely, YES, a piece of paper that was signed by all, including the officiating minister and those who witnessed the ritual. Your attempts to diminish _our_ relationship, though, do nothing of the sort. The point you're missing completely here is that you and your woman have the choice and freedom to exercise that choice. An entire group of people should also have that choice.


fdd2blk said:


> i don't think it really needs to be taught in sex ed class. why wife and wife or husband and husband? men and women make babies. men and women become married to make babies (traditionally). it's kinda the law of nature. call me old fashioned.
> 
> you don't have the right to bash me on the way i vote. i could rebut you with a bunch of gay bashing if you wish.


Hmm.. I'd call that the reaction of a homophobe. Not saying you are, but you sure sound like one.


fdd2blk said:


> is there nothing sacred anymore? nothing left in this world unchanged? so what do you want to call it when a male and female devote there lives to each to procreate children in the name of the species. it is it's own thing. a man and women devoting their lives to each other and "making" babies, not adopting but actually CREATING NEW LIFE. what will you call that?


I don't know. You tell me, since this is what you and your "wife" have done by making a baby and not making it known to the world that it's a marriage (remembering, again, that we live in a culture in where the government defines what is a marriage and what isn't). Again, there are those who would ask you the very same thing, is nothing sacred? How old-fashioned is it, really, to do what you're doing? 

But, hey, go ahead and dismiss the idea.


----------



## VTXDave (Oct 5, 2008)

fdd2blk said:


> "fucking and making babies"? is that what you and dave do? "fuck"? i'm sorry to hear that.  i hope some day you can experience "love".


 I'd highly recommend you retract your statement.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 5, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> Miss Hester, the only way you can do it is to lie to the insurance company. Health insurance availability on a family policy, at least through an employer, is usually restricted to spouses and under-age dependents. We've wanted to put Dave's dad on his insurance, but cannot because, despite the fact that he is our dependent, he is an adult and so must purchase separate insurance.
> Fdd, I simply took your lead. If you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't have chosen that tack. And that tack included who is having sex with whom. I simply used what I saw as the same sort of language you decided to start with. Fucking, banging, semantically they're both pretty close. And that was one of the very first things you mentioned, along with homosexuality being touched upon in sex education class.
> 
> You made the argument that marriage is about men and women committing to having and raising children together. I brought up Dave and I because we are not making children anymore. I guessed at the number of kids you have because I remember you remarking about a son and I thought I recalled you commenting about a daughter, but that was quite some time ago. Is the number of children relevant to the concept, though?
> ...


you've called me a liar, hypocrite and homophobe. all i said was i'm not married and i'm not experiencing any losses. what gives me the right to decide? well, it's on the ballot isn't it?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 6, 2008)

YES on 5.


Proposition 5: 


 Requires California to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees.
 Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation.
 Limits court&#8217;s authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole.
 Shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes.
 Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation.
 Changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 6, 2008)

VTXDave said:


> I'd highly recommend you retract your statement.


i knew you'd show up. did she run and get you or do you keep an eye on her?


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Oct 6, 2008)

"Changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions."

Hell yes I'd vote yes on this one !!!


----------



## Wikidbchofthewst (Oct 6, 2008)

I can see fdd's side as far as it having a different title, because marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. 

What matters to ME is that they have equal rights. I don't care if gay marriage is called something else, as long as they have the same rights as married straight couples.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 6, 2008)

Wikidbchofthewst said:


> I can see fdd's side as far as it having a different title, because marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.
> 
> What matters to ME is that they have equal rights. I don't care if gay marriage is called something else, as long as they have the same rights as married straight couples.






i like "common union", or something. 


everyone should have the same rights, married or not. you shouldn't be rewarded for being married. it should be a spiritual thing more than anything. you shouldn't get a tax break because you signed a paper or devoted your soul or whatever you do. that's a personal thing not a right to privileges. in my fogged opinion. 



funny the cops will recognize two people as a "couple" when it comes to domestic violence. two girls can be fighting in the apartment they share together. if they are just friends then they can be charged with battery. if they are lovers it is considered domestic violence. i think things are backwards when you can be arrested for something that the government doesn't believe exists.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Oct 7, 2008)

That is a really good point FDD. 

This is the same government that took out a patent on marijuana, even though they don't recognize it to be useful in any way. 

Thngs that make you go WTF.


----------



## Seamaiden (Oct 7, 2008)

fdd2blk said:


> you've called me a liar, hypocrite and homophobe. all i said was i'm not married and i'm not experiencing any losses. what gives me the right to decide? well, it's on the ballot isn't it?









In other words, fdd, if the shoe fits.  I simply call it like I see it. You're the one who's posted the personal information you've chosen to post, not I. I have simply taken your words and considered them in my response. Your contention that "marriage should be a spiritual" thing is disingenuous when you clearly plan to vote against allowing others the right that you chose not to exercise. And you should know, in case no one's told you before, police don't know the law. Want to know the law? Speak with an attorney.

Have you even read the proposition, fdd? Will you at least be honest enough to say that, even though you and your partner have decided to buck tradition and remain legally unmarried (which nullifies your argument asking if nothing is sacred, that we might call you old-fashioned, and that you're "traditional"), your real issue with allowing same-sex marriage is based in Abrahamic religious dogma? Because there really is no other reason to make a law taking away people's rights.

Btw, I've just read the legislation, and I would also like to know where people get the "I don't want them teaching homosexuality in school" thing. That type of comment really more displays a lack of understanding in how school districts and systems work more than it does any understanding of "marriage".

This legislation specifically removes the right of homosexuals who wish to solidify their union by the act of governmentally recognized marriage to do so. It is patently part and parcel of "the gay thing", whatever that means, because it specifically targets a group of people for something they have little control over--who turns them on and ultimately whom they love.

Here's a little education for those so inclined to do some reading (it involves thinking, too, so I hope it doesn't hurt too much).


> S.F. City Hall Examiner: Domestic Partnership vs. Marriage and Board Preview
> For starters, you should know that federal law recognizes only marriage between a man and a woman. It doesnt matter if two people are married, domestic partners or Facebook friends in the state of California, if both people can safely use the same dressing room at Wal-Mart, they arent a couple for the purposes of federal benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits and federal taxes.
> 
> To register as domestic partners, both persons must be at least 18 years old and share a residence. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 297(b)(1), (4).) Marriage has no cohabitation requirement and persons younger than 18 can be married so long as they get a court order. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 302, 303.) So, if you have a 16-year-old pen pal in Fresno, marriage is the better choice. And also: good luck with all that.
> ...


Some information as to what the _real_ differences are between civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriage.


> Rights vs. Obligations of Marriage - Los Angeles Times
> California passed domestic partner legislation last year that gives gay couples many of the same benefits as marriage. The law, which takes effect next January, will grant Californias more than 25,000 state-registered domestic partners the same rights, protections, benefits, obligations and duties as married spouses regarding property, children and arrangements after death.
> 
> But gay rights activists say theres still plenty missing: the right to file joint state tax returns, for example, and 1,049 federal rights granted to married couples. Among those are Social Security survivors benefits, Medicare and veterans benefits, and the right to help naturalize a foreign-born spouse.
> ...


For the sake of brevity I've only posted partial quotes of the above articles. But the point is, fdd, that your assertion that domestic partnership is equal to marriage in the eyes of the law is patently false, flat wrong. If you don't believe me, do the research yourself.

Oh, and I ran and got Dave.  But he also keeps an eye on me.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 7, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> In other words, fdd, if the shoe fits.  I simply call it like I see it. You're the one who's posted the personal information you've chosen to post, not I. I have simply taken your words and considered them in my response. Your contention that "marriage should be a spiritual" thing is disingenuous when you clearly plan to vote against allowing others the right that you chose not to exercise. And you should know, in case no one's told you before, police don't know the law. Want to know the law? Speak with an attorney.



i got to here and stopped. you have NO idea. you are assuming and we are getting nowhere. i bow out. you're better. you know everything. i'm wrong and you win. yes on 8.


----------



## GrowTech (Oct 7, 2008)

yeah i'm with fdd on that... i umm... im way too stoned for that level of reading...


----------



## Seamaiden (Oct 7, 2008)

But will you vote in favor of it nonetheless, despite hard factual information? 
Seriously, why the refusal to simply be a little better educated and informed? 
I am almost never "too stoned" for this level of reading, unless I'm asleep. 

At least be honest with yourselves, those of you in favor of Prop. 8, even if you won't be honest with the rest of us about why you feel the need to vote in favor of taking away someone's rights. That is the a big part of my message here. Bringing up individual points means that the door is open to debate them. When it comes to debating individual points, I can do that. I am pretty good at it because I think on it pretty hard. And I can do it in two ways, by being condescending towards people, or not. I make my very best efforts, most of the time, to not be condescending. But if I receive it for no reason, _especially_ when it's in response to what was ultimately an awful time and tale, in response to someone who's died, well... don't be surprised if it's handed back.

A lot of people used to crack on me for talking to my boys very seriously about their sexuality. I didn't leave it to how babies are made or the parts of their bodies or how mommies and daddies are supposed to wait until they're in love to make babies. I also explained to them about love and how people can't choose who they love, it just happens. And I included homosexuality in those talks, and how, NO MATTER WHAT, no matter who they loved when they found someone, if they felt they loved a man, I would still love them. Why? Because, my love is unconditional and absolute. I extend that sentiment to my gay friends and pass no judgment upon them and would _never_ do something that would infringe upon them in a way I would not like to be infringed upon. That's the main point of the debate on Prop. 8 for me.

Fdd, if I'm making erroneous assumptions, then I apologize. However, you do see that I, and anyone else here, can only go on what you've posted, right? So far from what I see I've gotten the kid count wrong and that's pretty much it. If that's offensive, I apologize. I'd like to reiterate that I am not criticizing you for making the choices to live your life as you wish, and I'm pretty sure I said as much previously. 

I do, however, think that the idea of taking away rights is very fundamentally wrong, and that the real reasoning behind your sentiments is based on (Abrahamic) religious dogma. If not, then I'd love to know how and why that impression is wrong. I don't expect a response from you on this at this juncture, but I am putting it out there. You once told me that you sometimes need to be called on things, and at that time I told you I am just the gal. I do my best to be respectful, but I also expect the same measure of respect in return.

If we want to get back to Prop. 5 I'm more than happy to do that, too. It looks like a really decent piece of legislation.


----------



## Wikidbchofthewst (Oct 7, 2008)

Yes, let's go back to prop 5, I'm sure we can agree on that


----------



## uggmaster (Oct 7, 2008)

Wow. I look away for a few days and theres a full on war in the thread. I meant to say yes on 5 and no on 8. My bad. 
But frankly this isn't a website about gay rights. Its a site about growing and using marijuana and as such I agree with everyone who would like to redirect conversation to the pertinent topic, proposition 5. 

Someone mentioned that Prop. 5 isn't limited to marijuana and as such it can get meth dealers out of prison and other drug offenders that even we on RUI might deem undesirables. But i still think that generally reducing the punishment for all drug offenders is a good idea. 

I'm surprised that we could afford to imprison all of these people for as long as we have. Its just not fiscally viable to keep drugs illegal. Millions can be made from taxing them and millions saved by not prosecuting and imprisoning every drug user,dealer and producer. Follow the money if nothing else.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 8, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> But will you vote in favor of it nonetheless, despite hard factual information?
> Seriously, why the refusal to simply be a little better educated and informed?
> I am almost never "too stoned" for this level of reading, unless I'm asleep.



i got this far and stopped again. you chose to insult my from the beginning. i don't listen to people who stoop to name calling. try a new approach next time. and the rambling is just that. i understand short single statements. i told you this last week. all this deep thinking gives me a headache. i'm a "simple man". 


my vote is my choice. vote however you want but stay outta my booth.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 8, 2008)

uggmaster said:


> Wow. I look away for a few days and theres a full on war in the thread. I meant to say yes on 5 and no on 8. My bad.
> But frankly this isn't a website about gay rights. Its a site about growing and using marijuana and as such I agree with everyone who would like to redirect conversation to the pertinent topic, proposition 5.
> 
> Someone mentioned that Prop. 5 isn't limited to marijuana and as such it can get meth dealers out of prison and other drug offenders that even we on RUI might deem undesirables. But i still think that generally reducing the punishment for all drug offenders is a good idea.
> ...




i was stuck on meth once. all i needed was a little help and i'm all good now. haven't touched it in 6 years. meth heads are people too. 




YES ON 5.


----------



## Seamaiden (Oct 8, 2008)

fdd2blk said:


> i got this far and stopped again. you chose to insult my from the beginning. i don't listen to people who stoop to name calling. try a new approach next time. and the rambling is just that. i understand short single statements. i told you this last week. all this deep thinking gives me a headache. i'm a "simple man".
> 
> 
> my vote is my choice. vote however you want but stay outta my booth.


Where did I call names? I made observations, based upon posts and put it out there. I think you stopped reading for other reasons. This is too bad, because I put in some good factual information, including some that's pertinent to your particular situation. You also missed some other stuff, but it's still there for you to read if you feel so inclined.

If you feel inclined to speak up on how you think others should vote, don't be offended if someone disagrees and is able to make an argument as to why. If I proffer up an opinion, I try to make sure I can back it up, honestly, wherever it falls.

I will be voting in favor of Prop. 5, and probably Prop. 2 (I think that's the farm animal one). Prop. 6 seems to address methamphetamine use, but it's mixed in with gang-related stuff, mostly tacking on time when someone's associated with a gang or using meth. And I don't think I'm quite there yet, thinking that _just_ because someone is affiliated with a gang their equal crime (let's take an armed robbery, for example) is any worse or deserving of greater punishment than someone else's, someone who is not affiliated with a gang. My mind is in the same place with regards to meth sentencing. Why should someone who was high on meth and carjacked someone, for instance, pay a higher price to society simply because they were high on meth? Isn't carjacking just as serious a crime in both instances?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 8, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> Where did I call names? I made observations, based upon posts and put it out there. I think you stopped reading for other reasons. This is too bad, because I put in some good factual information, including some that's pertinent to your particular situation. You also missed some other stuff, but it's still there for you to read if you feel so inclined.
> 
> If you feel inclined to speak up on how you think others should vote, don't be offended if someone disagrees and is able to make an argument as to why. If I proffer up an opinion, I try to make sure I can back it up, honestly, wherever it falls.
> 
> I will be voting in favor of Prop. 5, and probably Prop. 2 (I think that's the farm animal one). Prop. 6 seems to address methamphetamine use, but it's mixed in with gang-related stuff, mostly tacking on time when someone's associated with a gang or using meth. And I don't think I'm quite there yet, thinking that _just_ because someone is affiliated with a gang their equal crime (let's take an armed robbery, for example) is any worse or deserving of greater punishment than someone else's, someone who is not affiliated with a gang. My mind is in the same place with regards to meth sentencing. Why should someone who was high on meth and carjacked someone, for instance, pay a higher price to society simply because they were high on meth? Isn't carjacking just as serious a crime in both instances?



are you outta dope? i never told ANYONE how to vote. you did. you still are. you called me names. even admitted to it. pretty little pic and everything. insult me and I'M DONE WITH YOU. sheesh.


----------



## Alice B. Toklas (Oct 8, 2008)

good luck with that


----------

