Wednesday, October 20, 2010

What Just Happened?

Welcome to the 2010 gubernatorial debate, featuring candidates from the Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, and Tea parties. Here's what happened.
Candidates tackled all the propositional issues, as well as immigration, abortion, and same sex marriages.
Perhaps the most dissent among the candidates came in the form of legalizing marijuana, a.k.a Prop 19.
Leading the way in favor of this proposition was candidate Laura Wells from the green party. Wells was quick to let everyone know that "marijuana is the same as alcohol and tobacco," and asking "if those two substances are legal, why shouldn't marijuana be too?" Good question Ms. Wells, but before we answer the question lets look at some of the facts.
1. The prohibition of Alcohol in the 1920's and 30's caused much more illegal activity and was, in short, a disaster.
This fact, used by Wells to make her point, was such a disaster for one big reason. It ws the government taking away something it had already given; causing a much larger and more negative reaction than of the marijuana situation.
2. The proposition, as it currently stands written, is horribly under thought.
How can we as a state be completely for, or even against, a proposition that puts into the hands local governments the amounts that can be distributed, even allowing them to grant special permission for larger amounts to people. How can we use one vote to put so many different laws into action, not even sure what the law says in different parts of the state. Although Wells claims all will be well once a committee looks it over, but then why vote at all? If what we vote for isn't what is being enacted, what's the point?
Another point of debate was the issue of the same-sex marriage "Prop 8" being overturned less than a year after being approved by the majority of California voters.
While most of the candidates had no problem stating that, "government shouldn't control same sex marriages."(Jerry Brown) and more opinionated statements such as Wells' comment," I'm happy it was repealed," and Ogden's, "same-sex marriage is a step towards happiness." They all failed to address the real problem, a judge being able to singlehandedly(and repeatedly) overturn a law passed by hundreds of thousands of voters. If one judge can destroy our democratic process on this issue, what's next? The person who can answer me how can possibly keep the democratic process in tact, that person will have my vote.

1 comment:

  1. Candace, I respect your opinion, whatever it may be, about Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage. You say that the "real problem" (I'll disregard the implication that homosexuals being denied the right to marry is not a real problem) is that a judge can overturn a law passed by hundreds of thousands of voters, and therefore "destroy our democratic process." Well, I would like to point out something to you that may help clarify things a bit. The United States of America is *not* a democracy. It is a *constitutional* republic. That means that we elect representatives to, well, represent us, but we also have a constitution. This constitution protects all American citizens by recognizing certain rights. No matter how large the majority, no initiative can constitutionally take away those rights from any other American citizen. The judge overturned Proposition 8 because it was declared unconstitutional. So, while the democratic process is not intact, because it never existed, the constitutional democracy, in a way, is preserved. So, feel like voting Libertarian? :)