I Voted/ Contrarian Opinions

Well, I finally got around to voting yesterday. I vote absentee, for those that don't already know.

Pretty dull ballot for me, being registered with the Libertarian Party and not having local races on my ballot. The only thing to vote on was Props 98 and 99, the supposed eminent domain reform initiatives.

I was going to vote Yes on 98 and No on 99 as most libertarians suggested. That made sense, too, after seeing who was supporting voting the other way around- No on 98 and Yes on 99.

HOPE Coalition's list of organizations supporting or opposing the two initiatives (not available online) shows a real rogues' gallery of organizations supporting the No on 98 and/ or Yes on 99 vote. With the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association being about the only one endorsing a Yes on 98 it almost seemed a given to vote Yes/ No.

Anyone wanting to see HOPE Coalitions voter recommendation list, I have it in .pdf format. Let me know and I can send it to you.

I decided to compromise and vote Yes on both of them. Having either of them pass will hopefully be better than the status quo.

I would have expected most on the Left to vote No on both initiatives and it was kind of nice to see at least some endorsing 99. Then again, maybe they'll feel differently after reading this contrarian piece in the Sacramento Bee (as always, if asked to log in, you can use humboldtlib as the username and blogspot as the password).

The Bee opposes both because, in the case of 98, they seem to think it will stop just about any government control or regulation of private property. Prop 99, they say, isn't needed because no problem exists in the first place. That should change some of your minds, huh?

***********

Speaking of contrarian opinions, I was happy to see the State Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage, myself being a long time supporter of the issue. I was kind of surprised to see this opinion piece written by a gay fellow who doesn't see the decision in such a favorable light.

He makes the valid point that this could cause harm with the inevitable challenges to personal choice that will arise. For example; If a merchant had a sale designed for husbands and wives and didn't want that sale to apply to same- sex couples, he could be sued for discrimination. The writer gives some other examples.

I disagree with him, at least in part. The problem is beyond gay marriage. The problem is we allow personal choices- and, yes, sometimes that includes discrimination- less and less in this country today. If a merchant doesn't want to deal with the gay community (or people with disabilities, for that matter), that should be his choice. That's not the reality nowadays but that's the way it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

I think the writer is pretty much making an argument akin to saying one shouldn't buy a car because it might get stolen. I understand where the guy's coming from, but he should be attacking political correctness in the rest of society, not gay marriage.