like a lion
| home | news | woman | worlorn | the muse | off-ramp |
| contents | non-fiction | deb’s prose | d&d info | arts & crafts | exit |
| previous next |
revisiting issues
>...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 |
all rights reserved worldwide
