If you teach for a living, GTFIH now!!

[How LSD vote?]

How LSD vote?

Yes

 18 (26.1%)

No

 49 (71%)

Will not vote

 2 (2.9%)

Total Members Voted: 69

[Kantian]

Brief synopsis:

California Supreme Court has ruled that the state government has no jurisdiction over the choice of partner in marriage. Some opponents of this decision initiated prop 8, which if passed would reverse the decision made by the court.

(California state marriage law) "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

[valjean]

No.

How about Amendment 48 in Colorado? Granted, that one is basically a political stunt, but it has wacky implications that are fun to think about.

[IvyLeague2Be]

Obviously No

[Kantian]

Obviously No

Obvious as in commonly understood?

[Jamie Stringer]

Not only would I vote no, but I will be, in fact, voting no in less than a week.

[High Life]

yes.

[IvyLeague2Be]

Obviously No

Obvious as in commonly understood?

Yes, is they're any other meaning?

[ak2ca]

I'll be proudly voting NO!

[goaliechica]

I voted no today!

[Susan B. Anthony]

Brief synopsis:

California Supreme Court has ruled that the state government has no jurisdiction over the choice of partner in marriage. Some opponents of this decision initiated prop 8, which if passed would reverse the decision made by the court.

Well, functionally it would reverse the decision of the court, yes. What it actually does is amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Also, the court didn't exactly say that the state government has no jurisdiction over partner choice. They said that withholding the right to marry from same-sex couples violated their state constitutional rights.

Not to be picky or anything.