march
like a lion

G

home news woman worlorn the muse off-ramp
contents non-fiction deb’s prose d&d info arts & crafts exit

previous
next












no amendments, please
revisiting issues

2000.03.28






At 10:29 PM 3/27/00 , RCK wrote:
>...misconception on what laws actually *are*.

   i respect your law-student background and training, but i believe you misunderstand my philosophy as expressed on my web page. i clearly am at fault for not communicating clearly. let me try harder.
   [*smiles, cracks knuckles overhead, and pauses to prepare argument*]
   what i attempted to say is that i am against our society's attraction to amendments, concatenations, tacked on terminology to patch existing law for special interests.
   i am not against revisions to laws, new language that repeals and replaces bad existing legislation. my philosophy is to vote against amendments, additions to laws in existence, especially additional language that includes special interests or isolates specific minorities. my philosophy is to vote for repealing and revising existing laws, as long as revisions replace the old laws entirely.
   example #1—i refused to sign a friend's petition for an amendment to include same-gender relationships in marriages, because this would concatenate special interest language and complicate the law.
   example #2—i voted against a Californian amendment to exclude same-gender relationships in marriage, because this would concatenate special interest language and complicate the law. i also have a slight personal bias to include homosexual relationships as valid human partnerships, but as you might guess from example #1, this bias is less strong than my contempt for amendments to laws.
   example #3—i voted to repeal and revise (NB: not amend) the Santa Clara city code to entirely replace archaic sexist language with gender-neutral language. this proposition replaced the old laws entirely, and did not add to them.

>To revise a lw, you Amend it: which is what the Gay Marriage
>thing would do. It would add a section to the Family Code or
>wherever that says "Marriage is not prohibited between members
>of the same gender."


   you neglect the ability we have to repeal law entirely. also this statement is not accurately portraying the specific California laws in question. however, i forgive you, for you were not here in California to research the issues.
   the real-life marriage amendment #2 is the precise reverse of what you said, and #3 was not an amendment, but rather a proposition to discard the old Santa Clara laws and replace them with a new set entirely. #3, the replacement of Santa Clara laws, exactly disproves a suggestion that amendments are the only manner to change extant laws.
   i hope i've revealed that i understand and why i despise the process of amending laws. i hope i've explained my stance on the specific issues of the recent California elections in a way that reveals my philosophy better. amendments suck. repealing bad laws and replacing them with better ones is preferred.










home news woman worlorn the muse off-ramp
contents non-fiction deb’s prose d&d info arts & crafts exit

previous
next












don’t like it here?
tell me why






this page copyright © 2000 m. g. gadzikowski
all rights reserved worldwide