Either way, someone expressing a loss of belief in something makes them unlikable? You don't like Peter Thiel because he's become cynical about democracy?
Either way, someone expressing a loss of belief in something makes them unlikable? You don't like Peter Thiel because he's become cynical about democracy?
First, California is only very liberal in certain places. It is very conservative in others (the Central Valley)
Second, gay marriage opposition had a huge campaign by a religious organization. That religious organization should have been fined heavily or lost its tax exemption for doing so.
Third, it takes time for the attitudes about things like marijuana legalization to shift. That moment was, in fact, the last moment when the legalization opponents could have won. And they were backed by large amounts of money being thrown around by things like the alcohol lobby who are deathly afraid of legalization affecting their profits (they are correct).
And neither of those sets of incentives is, unlike the doubly-indirect structure itself, part of the federal Constitution; they are both much more recent federal statute and state law incentives.
Nothing to be "correct" about.
Because animals are not able to give consent, nor are they capable of the thinking required to do so. Suggesting that homosexuality and zoophilia are two points on the same line is a very tired and inaccurate point to try to make.
> If marijuana, why not cocaine?
Actually a fair question. There's an interesting line of thought in legalising all drugs to bring them out into the open.