Prop 8 to pass?

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution about water fountains. However, the Constitution DOES include language about equal protections of all U.S. citizens, and equal rights. So courts rule this kind of business unconstitutional. The same rulings ... the "good rulings" that even you guys would agree with today, growing up after the history of formalized segregation, you would and do call "judicial overreaching" if applied today overturning voter-passed legislation.

Off-topic

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should mandate paternity leave for husbands and boyfriends of pregnant women in the same way that they mandate it for the pregnant women? Using constitutional equal rights protection, of course.

I really don't understand why we need a legislature or referendums at all.

[Koga No Goshi]

Off-topic

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should mandate paternity leave for husbands and boyfriends of pregnant women in the same way that they mandate it for the pregnant women? Using constitutional equal rights protection, of course.

I really don't understand why we need a legislature or referendums at all.

Maternity leave is MANDATED? If there is a law saying women cannot work during a certain point in the pregnancy I'm unaware of it. If you mean, should states have to ALLOW paternity leave or some form of time-off flexibility for fathers (doctors visits for wife, prenatal care appointments, and time after the baby is born) much of the first world already has this in law and certainly if a man was terminated from his job for reasonable absence related to having a new baby (taking the wife to important doctor's visits, helping with the care after birth, etc.), I believe he does and should have a case in court.

But in regards to the second comment-- I'm not 100% sure this is what you meant, but... if what you mean is, it's "funny" how attempts to ban or restrict rights (things like Prop 187, Prop 8) always go to state ballot/referendum, and attempts to have rights recognized or discriminatory laws challenged goes to the courts, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's not difficult to have already existing prejudices or discriminatory practices upheld in a general, straight majority public vote. The courts, by virtue of not depending on popular vote, have both the leeway as well as the obligation to examine the issue within the greater context of Constitutionality and legally logical reasoning which of course, is not required and largely not a component of much of the public vote. The yes on 8 ads were proof enough of that... a lot of them didn't even touch the issue directly at all, and just told parents their kids would be "taught gay marriage" if they didn't vote yes.

A voter making a call on oh I dunno... let's say a law about redlining, based on seeing a commercial with black kids hitting on white girls in high school, is something that has happened/does happen in our democratic process --- one would hope judges and the court system are not making their rulings based on the same mindset, though.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maternity leave is MANDATED? If there is a law saying women cannot work during a certain point in the pregnancy I'm unaware of it. If you mean, should states have to ALLOW paternity leave or some form of time-off flexibility for fathers (doctors visits for wife, prenatal care appointments, and time after the baby is born) much of the first world already has this in law and certainly if a man was terminated from his job for reasonable absence related to having a new baby (taking the wife to important doctor's visits, helping with the care after birth, etc.), I believe he does and should have a case in court.

But in regards to the second comment-- I'm not 100% sure this is what you meant, but... if what you mean is, it's "funny" how attempts to ban or restrict rights (things like Prop 187, Prop 8) always go to state ballot/referendum, and attempts to have rights recognized or discriminatory laws challenged goes to the courts, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's not difficult to have already existing prejudices or discriminatory practices upheld in a general, straight majority public vote. The courts, by virtue of not depending on popular vote, have both the leeway as well as the obligation to examine the issue within the greater context of Constitutionality and legally logical reasoning which of course, is not required and largely not a component of much of the public vote. The yes on 8 ads were proof enough of that... a lot of them didn't even touch the issue directly at all, and just told parents their kids would be "taught gay marriage" if they didn't vote yes.

A voter making a call on oh I dunno... let's say a law about redlining, based on seeing a commercial with black kids hitting on white girls in high school, is something that has happened/does happen in our democratic process --- one would hope judges and the court system are not making their rulings based on the same mindset, though.

I'm sorry - I meant mandated on the companies.

http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki...aternity_Leave

My point is that the maternity leave can be split, but more reasonably it should be more available to pregnant women. My point is that women have a special right that makes sense due to their sex. It is a separate right and I wouldn't push for men to have it. I find it similar to the right that women have to marry only men, and men have the right to marry women.

Your exceptions to that don't need to happen within the same institution and are covered in civil unions in your state.

The point is that separate rights based on sex are sometimes sensible and based on the sheer biology. Maternity leave and marriage are examples of those. If you want to get rid of or modify marriage as policy take it to the legislature.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm sorry - I meant mandated on the companies.

http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki...aternity_Leave

My point is that the maternity leave can be split, but more reasonably it should be more available to pregnant women. My point is that women have a special right that makes sense due to their sex. It is a separate right and I wouldn't push for men to have it. I find it similar to the right that women have to marry only men, and men have the right to marry women.

Your exceptions to that don't need to happen within the same institution and are covered in civil unions in your state.

The point is that separate rights based on sex are sometimes sensible and based on the sheer biology. Maternity leave and marriage are examples of those. If you want to get rid of or modify marriage as policy take it to the legislature.

Countries like Sweden and others allow paternity leave and I believe we will see more of this in the future, and I support it. Now that women are largely no longer "stay at home moms", and it will increasingly be the case that women are professionals and needed income earners, I would support any change in the laws allowing time split, flexibility, or paternity instead of maternity leave. We already have many clients (in my accounting workplace) where the dad comes in to take care of all the tax stuff, on weekdays, during the daytime, with kid in tow or on his shoulder, because between him and the mother, the wife made more money, and it was more financially sensible for him to take time off work with the newborn.

[HoreTore]

Countries like Sweden and others allow paternity leave and I believe we will see more of this in the future, and I support it.

What? Am I reading this correctly? Fathers don't get paid leave from work when they have a baby in the US?

[CountArach]

What? Am I reading this correctly? Fathers don't get paid leave from work when they have a baby in the US?

Quite a few countries don't have that.

[Husar]

I see.

My valuable post is being ignored while people argue about petty issues, grammar and make stupid jokes and then wonder why the Backroom is full of hostility and stupidity.

[HoreTore]

Quite a few countries don't have that.

What? Seriously? I should be very happy I live in Norway then.