Is this politics, or is this civil rights?

[figmo]

In California one of the things we'll be voting on is Proposition 8. If passed, it would add the following wording to the California State Constitution:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

An identical proposition passed in 2000 but was ruled "unconstitutional" by the CA State Supreme Court because it discriminates against a segment of the population.

If it passes again, the court is likely to make the same ruling, just as the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled anti-flag-burning legislation as "unconstitutional."

I don't know what percentage of the California population is gay, but nonetheless, such a law would only legalize active discrimination, just as the "separate but equal" laws did years ago. What I don't understand is why the supporters of this proposition are so adamant to try to legislate discrimination which, if passed, will be overturned yet again.

Comments

[merlinpole.livejournal.com]

California politicians forced the sale of publically owned power plants in California to private businesses, which then sold the power from the plants to private customers paying special rates, which rates involve extremely large profits for power companies when the private companies consuming the power, don't cut consumption, or need extra power, for times when the customers have agreed to cut power consumption, or limit their power consumption to certain levels.

The politicians were getting perks for their actions selling out the public interest. The corporations which bought the power plants, made contracts to maximize their revenue--the agreements didn;t involve placing state of California as a priority, privileged, low power price customer.