Posted by jrd_x on 6/3/2012 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/3/2012 11:25:00 AM (view original):For some issues, a direct vote is fine.
They were given the right by a decision of the court, who took it away when the Constitution was changed by the people.
Is this a rights issue, or a resonable regulation put on marriage?
I think pot should be legal. But, when put to a vote, it remains illegal. That's ok, because the people voting to make it illegal for me are also voting to make it illegal for themselves.
With regard to same sex marriage, people are voting for a regulation that they themselves won't be affected by. They can still get married and are voting away someone else's right to marry. That's the problem.
That is a very poorly thought out analogy.
If a person votes to keep pot illegal, you're saying that's OK because they're voting to make it illegal for themselves.
If a person votes against SSM, you're saying that's not OK because they're not affected by it. Which is false. They are still affected by it because they are also voting to take that "right" away from themselves.
If a person is predisposed to (a) not want to smoke pot, and (b) not want to marry a person of the same sex, how can you say one vote is OK while the other is not?