![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
serynI'm disappointed in Maine voters. I realize, living in California, that I don't have a lot of room to talk. I voted against the proposition that says the voters can take away rights from people who have them, which was numbered 8, but even I was not all that enthused because they never seemed to explain it that way.
The majority should NOT be able to decide some minority group no longer has the same rights as everyone else.
And to reiterate my arguments against domestic partnership laws to get around the semantics... in Washington (the state) they voted on new rules which would make domestic partnerships more equitable with marriage. That is precisely the problem. Marriage is a social contract defined by unwritten common consensus. Domestic partnerships are explicitly defined and the provisions must be specifically allocated and can be revoked at any time without real outrage. They're not rights, they're privileges and thus contingent upon your group's current popularity.
You should not have to worry that your rights are going to be taken away for no reason. Who will be next to be declared subhuman?
The majority should NOT be able to decide some minority group no longer has the same rights as everyone else.
And to reiterate my arguments against domestic partnership laws to get around the semantics... in Washington (the state) they voted on new rules which would make domestic partnerships more equitable with marriage. That is precisely the problem. Marriage is a social contract defined by unwritten common consensus. Domestic partnerships are explicitly defined and the provisions must be specifically allocated and can be revoked at any time without real outrage. They're not rights, they're privileges and thus contingent upon your group's current popularity.
You should not have to worry that your rights are going to be taken away for no reason. Who will be next to be declared subhuman?
