Official Election Thread

[hawk]

Dems take the House.
Senate is up for grabs.

Living in Virginia and seeing all of the ads has made the race all that more interesting. 3,000 votes separate them with over 2.25 million votes. Crazy.

[Bluefire]

Dems have a chance with Webb winning. I still think McCaskill takes Missouri right now, its way early there. Corker takes Tennessee. Montana I've thought Burns takes it just because of the Bush push, but I hope I'm wrong./

[EyjaPia]

Please tell me everyone watched the Election Midtacular.

Cowards win!

Only 3 seats left and they think Virginia will go D now (well Howard Dean is counting on the northern votes coming in- I'm partial).

Seriously, 2,500 votes is the separation in Virginia.

[Bluefire]

Please tell me everyone watched the Election Midtacular.

Cowards win!

Only 3 seats left and they think Virginia will go D now (well Howard Dean is counting on the northern votes coming in- I'm partial).

Seriously, 2,500 votes is the separation in Virginia.

It was fkin awesome, lol.

TERRORIST WIN CAKE!

[dook]

I don't get this state. We overwhelmingly elect a full slate of democrats for everything, we vote down every single one of arnold's special intiatives on the referendum last year, and yet we're reelecting him :(

[Zogo]

I don't get this state. We overwhelmingly elect a full slate of democrats for everything, we vote down every single one of arnold's special intiatives on the referendum last year, and yet we're reelecting him :(

did you see him in T2: judgment day? he kicked the t-1000's ass.

[Cyberdemon]

Goooooooo McCaskill!

Pederson lost to Kyl :mad: but Hayworth went down to Mitchell and AZ's same-sex marriage ban is almost defeated.

[ChEEsEy ManZ]

I don't get this state. We overwhelmingly elect a full slate of democrats for everything, we vote down every single one of arnold's special intiatives on the referendum last year, and yet we're reelecting him :(


highly agreed.

and i'm severely pissed off that prop 83 is passing with amazing ease.

I don't mind arnold in office, i just don't like how people vote so inconsistantly.

[ffej-OD]

Goooooooo McCaskill!

Pederson lost to Kyl :mad: but Hayworth went down to Mitchell and AZ's same-sex marriage ban is almost defeated.

It sucks we still have to deal with Kyl, but I couldn't be more happy Hayworth is out.

[xero]

Well at this point it seems pretty certain that Democrats will control both houses.

I hope they make use of this opportunity and that they do not squander it.

[Moniker]

I hope they make use of this opportunity and that they do not squander it. I also hope Santa Claus delivers me presents this year.

[Kartikeya-OD]

Well at this point it seems pretty certain that Democrats will control both houses.

I hope they make use of this opportunity and that they do not squander it.

Sadly it will still be a deadlock much like it has been for the past few years.

[larcain]

Waste the chance? Well, no. They will take this chance have trumped up, media hyped investigations into pretty much everything from what Bush's breakfast cereal is to whether or not Bush is responsible for the faked moon landing.

[EyjaPia]

I think Tom DeLay's comment was pretty interesting.

"The Democrats didn't win, the Republicans lost."

I worry that people will expect things to change so suddenly and drastically and forget the slow political process that runs Congress. The Republicans have been such a unified and staunch force- especially with the current administration. I think the Democrats have somewhat of an uphill battle in proving that the American people chose correctly. They've been given a chance, let's hope they use it well.

That being said, I wonder how long it'll be before anything in Virginia is for sure...

[larcain]

The republicans united? I'm not certain what congress you were watching because the idiot republican party spent so much time backstabbing each other (can you say John McCain or Chuck Hagle or Lincoln Chafee?) they were more dangerous to each other than the dems ever are. That is one thing the dems definately have is party discipline (as indicated by the fact that they tried to throw Joe Liberman off the boat because he didn't toe the party line on the war).

As far as changing? pfft. The dems aren't interested in changing a damned thing. They are simply interested in blaming the republicans for whatever it is. Which is what the next 2 years will be.

[VeeKaChu]

They will take this chance have trumped up, media hyped investigations into pretty much everything from what Bush's breakfast cereal is to whether or not Bush is responsible for the faked moon landing.Yes, the return of the seminal Republican Talking Point- the great "Liberal Left Media Conspiracy"! It's just so unfair that the MSM trumped-up all those stories about rampant corruption and corporate cronyism on the Hill... it was horrible how they made the administation look incompetent and criminally irresponsible. And the way they made the people "HATE BUSH!" We shouldn't even have a media, they fuck it all up so much.

Oh, and don't forget to blame Clinton... :rolleyes:

Honestly, the best thing we should all take away from this election is the re-affirmation that the system still works as it should, and the people really do have a voice.

[public_slots_free.mL]

my district is too close to call right now still with a 50/50 split separated by 1100 votes.

[larcain]

Yes, the return of the seminal Republican Talking Point- the great "Liberal Left Media Conspiracy"! It's just so unfair that the MSM trumped-up all those stories about rampant corruption and corporate cronyism on the Hill...

Honestly, the best thing we should all take away from this election is the re-affirmation that the system still works as it should, and the people really do have a voice.

Yes, I got the memo this morning on talking points. You cut and paste that crap from the moveon.org forums? Or is rabies just overwhelming you?

[Cyberdemon]

It sucks we still have to deal with Kyl, but I couldn't be more happy Hayworth is out.

I would've liked to see both smoking bans defeated, but at least only the first one passed. My personal favorite is still the pregnant calf proposition, which sailed with something like 75% of the vote.

I went to bed around 2:00 (and this is West Coast time) hoping to wake up and find that they'd finished the recount in Yellowstone county, and still nobody has any idea what's going on in Montana. Allen's supposedly got a press conference in a bit and Bush will lend us his thoughts later this morning, so it's good times all around.

my district is too close to call right now still with a 50/50 split separated by 1100 votes.

Some of these margins are just freakish. Several House districts are separated by less by 1000 votes, with half a dozen of those around 500 and Connecticut's second currently reported as 170.

[EyjaPia]

Some of these margins are just freakish. Several House districts are separated by less by 1000 votes, with half a dozen of those around 500 and Connecticut's second currently reported as 170.


Really. Those numbers make you realize how important voting really is.

[sani]

I don't get this state. We overwhelmingly elect a full slate of democrats for everything, we vote down every single one of arnold's special intiatives on the referendum last year, and yet we're reelecting him :(

same here :[

[Moniker]

Really. Those numbers make you realize how important voting really is. Not very?

The only elections that make a difference are state and local. Federal elections basically swing one way or another whether you win your district or not.

Honestly, the best thing we should all take away from this election is the re-affirmation that the system still works as it should, and the people really do have a voice. Just to play Devil's Advocate, the people are also overwhelmingly voting in gay marriage bans on a state level (save maybe one or two states).

So my question is, what matters more; the will of the people or the government doing what they think is best?

[VeeKaChu]

Yes, I got the memo this morning on talking points. You cut and paste that crap from the moveon.org forums? Or is rabies just overwhelming you?Yeah, I'm "rabid". OMG, that's about the most sour-grapes thing you could possibly say. Show your ass much? Even Rick Santorum showed some civilty in defeat, you might take a page from his book. C'mon, surprise me.

Donald Rumsfield is OUT! Boy that didn't take long.

[hawk]

I remember several of you arguing that the 2004 election was a mandate for president Bush to continue his action. You must now agree that this is a mandate for the president to completely change his direction. A swing of 28 house seats and probably 6 senate seats, that's a pretty strong statement by the American people. Especially when you consider some of the seats lost, the 3rd most powerful senator lost badly. Experienced name-recognized house representatives lost. Just a really bad day for the Republican party.

I've heard some undertones that this may hurt the Democrats for the 08' election because Congress will continue to be deadlocked, and the American people are expecting change. Things continue to go badly in X, the Republicans can now say "we're not in charge anymore, it's the Dems." The best possible scenario might have been for this landslide to happen at the same time as the presidential election, that way the Democrats could really progress their own agenda.

[EyjaPia]

Not very?

The only elections that make a difference are state and local. Federal elections basically swing one way or another whether you win your district or not.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, the people are also overwhelmingly voting in gay marriage bans on a state level (save maybe one or two states).

So my question is, what matters more; the will of the people or the government doing what they think is best?


I'm not sure I completely agree (fully willing to admit I am an idealist). Yes in local elections your vote counts more. When I voted in the Green Party Primary in Iceland, there were 82 votes total- so mine mattered. But trends can come from these local elections. Take Kansas. Nancy Boyda lost by a significant margin (15%) in the last election but was able to garner funding for this one largely due to the voting trends in local districts. The National Democratic Party would never have given Boyda that much funding had the local elections been so convincing.

I don't understand the gay marriage bans. I really don't. If people are voting more toward Democrat, you'd think the referendums would follow (as they did with abortion in South Dakota and Stem Cells in Missouri). I think it's large part lack of the ability to educate voters on the issue as people are confused as to what gay marriage means in terms of impact on their own lives.

[EyjaPia]

Things continue to go badly in X, the Republicans can now say "we're not in charge anymore, it's the Dems." agenda.


Exactly. As Stephen Colbert put it last night "the Democrats have got us stuck in this messy war in Iraq- look what they're doing" or something to that effect. If they can set a clear agenda, they might have some chances or holding on to their support but even Nancy Pelosi's words last night seemed more celebratory than goal-oriented and I worry that the Democrats won't take a stand fast enough.

[larcain]

Yeah, I'm "rabid". OMG, that's about the most sour-grapes thing you could possibly say. Show your ass much? Even Rick Santorum showed some civilty in defeat, you might take a page from his book. C'mon, surprise me.

Donald Rumsfield is OUT! Boy that didn't take long.

Sorry grapes? Right.Sure. Whatever.As far as civility? Like you would recognize it. Veiled cheapshots and retarded inuendos do not constitute civility.

[Cyberdemon]

Bush is taking questions and looks/sounds like he's about ready to strangle a puppy.

edit: and they called it for Tester in Montana.

edit2: bahahaha my god please keep taking questions

[MidnightStalker]

So my question is, what matters more; the will of the people or the government doing what they think is best?
Depends if you're living in an democracy. If you are, the answer is redundantly obvious.

I don't understand the gay marriage bans. I really don't. If people are voting more toward Democrat, you'd think the referendums would follow (as they did with abortion in South Dakota and Stem Cells in Missouri). I think it's large part lack of the ability to educate voters on the issue as people are confused as to what gay marriage means in terms of impact on their own lives.
Perhaps it's because Democrats, too, contain a religious moral fiber that takes precedence over political agendas?

[sparkz]

Waste the chance? Well, no. They will take this chance have trumped up, media hyped investigations into pretty much everything from what Bush's breakfast cereal is to whether or not Bush is responsible for the faked moon landing.


As far as changing? pfft. The dems aren't interested in changing a damned thing. They are simply interested in blaming the republicans for whatever it is. Which is what the next 2 years will be.

Hey, let me borrow your crystal ball. I'm thinking of asking someone out, and knowing what she'll say before I ask would be radical. :rolleyes:



I love it. It hasn't even been a full 24-hours since the elections, and the conservatives around these parts have already become snarky and bitter. I guess the liberals are now off the hook when it comes to pithy sarcasm.

It's good to see that people actually saw through the gay marriage and abortion nonsense, and realized that just because people say all the right things, doesn't mean that they're going to do all of the right things.

[dys]

Don't really care who won, I hope the changes coming are for the better.

[Moniker]

I don't understand the gay marriage bans. I really don't. If people are voting more toward Democrat, you'd think the referendums would follow (as they did with abortion in South Dakota and Stem Cells in Missouri). I think it's large part lack of the ability to educate voters on the issue as people are confused as to what gay marriage means in terms of impact on their own lives. Well, see, that's the problem, you're making a wild assumption.

Democrats != liberal. Just because someone votes Democrat doesn't mean they automatically swing to the left socially. African Americans and Hispanics are very religious, but tend to also vote Democrat because the GOP disenfranchises them. Also, a lot of people who are in unions will tend to vote Democrat, but are still socially right leaning. Oh, and a lot of people are plenty educated on the issue, but simply decide against it based on personal preferences.

Still, I want someone to answer this question: should the government do what is "right" or should they do what the people say? Because the people don't always look out for the minority, but the government doesn't always listen to what the majority either.

Basically what I'm saying is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

edit:
Depends if you're living in an democracy. If you are, the answer is redundantly obvious. Hey, if you're cool with gay marriage bans, I am too. Power to the people.

[MidnightStalker]

Edit: edit after edit.

[larcain]

Snarky? What is snarky about that? That was basically what the dems ran on. Their whole "plan" was: The republicans suck. The economy sucks. Iraq sucks. Bush sucks. This isn't reading tea leaves. It is simply projecting their present behaviour forward.

[sparkz]

should the government do what is "right" or should they do what the people say?

I've always thought that the people make the best determination on what is "right." There's always going to be a minority that disagrees, but like you've said quite a few times yourself, "majority rules."

[MidnightStalker]

Depends. The majority, in this case would refer to those who don't vote, because they're usually always the majority.

[dys]

Still, I want someone to answer this question: should the government do what is "right" or should they do what the people say?
The government always has and always will do what's "right", for the government. And when it appears they're listening to the people and talking about doing what the people want, elections must be coming. And when those elections are done, resort back to my first sentence.

[MidnightStalker]

It wouldn't be called a representative democracy then. By definition, the government is doing exactly what the people want because the people are being represented in actions by the people they elect.

[Moniker]

Depends. The majority, in this case would refer to those who don't vote, because they're usually always the majority. Nonvoting is hardly an excuse for discrediting majority representation.

[MidnightStalker]

I'm not discrediting anything. I'm stating the majority that rules are those who don't vote, because they make up the majority.

[dook]

highly agreed.

and i'm severely pissed off that prop 83 is passing with amazing ease.

I don't mind arnold in office, i just don't like how people vote so inconsistantly.


i can't tell if you're joking or not... but i voted against 83. why? cause nobody should be tracked by GPS, not even repeat sex offenders.

edit: and that'd keep me away from my favorite parks :(

edit edit: i'm split on the two big measures: the parental notification failed, which is a good thing i think; but the alternative energy measure also failed... thanks to spending all that money big oil

[Yesbama]

Depends if you're living in an democracy. If you are, the answer is redundantly obvious.


Perhaps it's because Democrats, too, contain a religious moral fiber that takes precedence over political agendas?


That still doesn't explain gay marriage bans. If people are religious and do not prefer to marry the same sex, then why stop other people? Why? Why? Why?

[MidnightStalker]

Because it goes against their religion?

[WiKiD]

"their"

[sani]

if they're christians, then just ask for forgiveness.

[sparkz]

Because it goes against their religion?

Then they shouldn't do it themselves.

But that's not enough. Christians think that everyone else should be Christian and that the Christian lifestyle should be everyone's lifestyle. It's one of those things that is what it is.

[Yesbama]

Pretty similar to other religions we/and "christians" bash throughout the world :/

[MV8]

Then they shouldn't do it themselves.

But that's not enough. Christians think that everyone else should be Christian and that the Christian lifestyle should be everyone's lifestyle. It's one of those things that is what it is.


good thing that they are not Islamics. Cause they would just kill them...

[Moniker]

That still doesn't explain gay marriage bans. If people are religious and do not prefer to marry the same sex, then why stop other people? Why? Why? Why? Because they don't fucking feel like it. Because it's against their religion. Who knows? Unless you're representing someone else, you shouldn't have to justify your vote to anyone for any reason. I could vote for one guy because I like his tie. It doesn't matter.

All you need to know is that the voters in every state save Arizona doesn't want gays to marry for one reason or another.

edit:
I'm stating the majority that rules are those who don't vote, because they make up the majority. I know you're trying to be unique and enlightened here, but it's not working. The nonvoting majority cannot possibly rule because the representation of any number of nonvoters in a democracy is exactly 0%. In every context of political speech, it's understood that the majority is the majority of the voting public unless otherwise specified.

[q]

Dems take the House.

hey 1994

[Kartikeya-OD]

I remember several of you arguing that the 2004 election was a mandate for president Bush to continue his action. You must now agree that this is a mandate for the president to completely change his direction.

I don't remember myself making this statement however I can agree with it. I would debate what changes and why at this point. Hopefully there can be a healthy dialoge between the new speaker and our President on this matter.


Especially when you consider some of the seats lost, the 3rd most powerful senator lost badly. Experienced name-recognized house representatives lost. Just a really bad day for the Republican party.

History has repated itself. Much like it does during the sixth year of any two termPresident.

The best possible scenario might have been for this landslide to happen at the same time as the presidential election, that way the Democrats could really progress their own agenda.

That's a plausable reality. Only time will tell.

[SUPITSREV]

the senate would have gone 50/50 if harold ford jr could have overcome the slight lead of bob corker. the independants received over a percent of the vote to drop junior. it was the closest senatorial race (that i know of, i could be wrong)

first time ive seen national political news coverage go into a frenzy over my states candidates since ive been here. you couldnt get anywhere near downtown chattanooga last night. Between the 2 guys, they spent 28 million on campaign advertising, which is pretty outrageous for our poor state

[}tHoL{-Bout2plucku]

Please tell me everyone watched the Election Midtacular.

Cowards win!

Only 3 seats left and they think Virginia will go D now (well Howard Dean is counting on the northern votes coming in- I'm partial).

Seriously, 2,500 votes is the separation in Virginia.
Sorry john i can't hear you over all the liberty

[Tone-Loc]

the senate would have gone 50/50 if harold ford jr could have overcome the slight lead of bob corker. the independants received over a percent of the vote to drop junior. it was the closest senatorial race (that i know of, i could be wrong)

Actually REV, the independent vote hurt Corker, not Ford. Look at the results...


Bob Corker 921085 51%
Harold Ford 872011 48%
Ed Choate 10570 1%
David Gatchell 3665 0%
Emory Heyward 3506 0%
Gary Keplinger 2990 0%
Christopher Lugo 2528 0%

» Precincts reporting: 98%


Choate is a Conservative Christian
Gatchell is a "None of the Above" guy with no stance
Heyward is a die-cast Conservative
Keplinger is a Moderate Liberal
Lugo is Green Party

Goate + Heyward = 14076
Keplinger + Lugo = 5518
Hell, I'll give you the None of the Above votes too... = 9183

[Zogo]

I saw part of bush's speech today. 3 words describe it: mumbling stumbling bumbling.

I've always thought that the people make the best determination on what is "right."

never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Because it goes against their religion?

there's a lot more things that go against their religion that are legal.

[Cyberdemon]

the senate would have gone 50/50 if harold ford jr could have overcome the slight lead of bob corker. the independants received over a percent of the vote to drop junior. it was the closest senatorial race (that i know of, i could be wrong)

Not even close. The tightest would probably be Montana (~3000 votes), followed by Virginia (~8000 votes).

Speaking of, the AP just projected Webb as the winner in Virginia with the canvass still in progress, so the blowout is all but official. :cool:

That still doesn't explain gay marriage bans. If people are religious and do not prefer to marry the same sex, then why stop other people? Why? Why? Why?

You're asking for a rational defense of a religious issue. Part of the reason it's on the ballot in the first place is to get angry Christians riled up and voting, and in that sense it's in lawmakers' interest to oppose gay marriage while not using language as strong as that in some of these propositions. Thus the courts are around to - theoretically - smack them down as need be.

[sparkz]

good thing that they are not Islamics. Cause they would just kill them...

Tell me about it.

[xero]

It's interesting that the topic of public referenda on gay marriage has come up in connection with the Democratic pickups in the House and Senate.

I know this is an aside, and I don't want it to detract from the nature of the thread, but I'd like to add to it.

I think the real truth behind these gay marriage amendments is that people just assume that these amendments do only what they're told they do -- ban gay marriage. But it isn't that simple. If most people who voted for it have actually read it, they probably would've voted against it, because it's absurd.

So, how many of you have actually read the gay marriage ban for Virginia?

For starters, it was proposed to combat 'judicial activism.'

But read it -- I seriously encourage you to find a copy of the text. It's not that long, but it is very profound.

It plainly strips the 'marital' benefits from gay and straight couples alike -- just like Ohio. And just like in Ohio, that means most insurance, medical, estate/will, and business partnership contracts are totally fucked. It also means that domestic violence don't apply to whoever you live with unless they're married to you. Don't believe me? Look at Ohio. Their State Supreme Court struck down their Domestic Violence Law because it's unconstitutional due to clashing with their new gay marriage amendment. And there have been people who have walked away from beating their girlfriends/fiances/roommates unpunished because of this gay marriage amendment.

One of the Virginia Supreme Court Justices wrote an editorial in the Washington Post that was openly critical of the referendum because of how sweepingly broad it was, and how it negatively impacts something like half all couples in the state.

When these legal and political challenges to the Virginia gay marriage amendment were layed out last month, the legislature responded with, "Oh don't worry. The courts will interpret this amendment as it sees fit."

Hey, wait a fucking minute. Didn't they pass this to explicitly prevent 'judicial activism?' This creates more judicial activism and subjective involvement by judges than it prevents!

You know, if people could get some honesty from their politicians and/or would read legislation once in a while (it used to be openly published in newspapers a century ago, along with how it was voted on by which representatives), this kind of shit wouldn't happen.

So then, logically, the amendment makes no sense. Why do such damage to the relationships of every non-married couple in the state? Why destroy so many completely good and viable laws? The answer seems pretty clear: It was all a shell game for political leverage to help keep Republicans in their seats. People show up to vote down gay marriage, and vote straight party line (probably Republican) while they're at it.

The politicians gave the entire state's population the noose to hang themselves with, and got nothing out of it. Nice.

[StrongBad]

It's interesting that the topic of public referenda on gay marriage has come up in connection with the Democratic pickups in the House and Senate.

I know this is an aside, and I don't want it to detract from the nature of the thread, but I'd like to add to it.

I think the real truth behind these gay marriage amendments is that people just assume that these amendments do only what they're told they do -- ban gay marriage. But it isn't that simple. If most people who voted for it have actually read it, they probably would've voted against it, because it's absurd.

So, how many of you have actually read the gay marriage ban for Virginia?

For starters, it was proposed to combat 'judicial activism.'

But read it -- I seriously encourage you to find a copy of the text. It's not that long, but it is very profound.

It plainly strips the 'marital' benefits from gay and straight couples alike -- just like Ohio. And just like in Ohio, that means most insurance, medical, estate/will, and business partnership contracts are totally fucked. It also means that domestic violence don't apply to whoever you live with unless they're married to you. Don't believe me? Look at Ohio. Their State Supreme Court struck down their Domestic Violence Law because it's unconstitutional due to clashing with their new gay marriage amendment. And there have been people who have walked away from beating their girlfriends/fiances/roommates unpunished because of this gay marriage amendment.

One of the Virginia Supreme Court Justices wrote an editorial in the Washington Post that was openly critical of the referendum because of how sweepingly broad it was, and how it negatively impacts something like half all couples in the state.

When these legal and political challenges to the Virginia gay marriage amendment were layed out last month, the legislature responded with, "Oh don't worry. The courts will interpret this amendment as it sees fit."

Hey, wait a fucking minute. Didn't they pass this to explicitly prevent 'judicial activism?' This creates more judicial activism and subjective involvement by judges than it prevents!

You know, if people could get some honesty from their politicians and/or would read legislation once in a while (it used to be openly published in newspapers a century ago, along with how it was voted on by which representatives), this kind of shit wouldn't happen.

So then, logically, the amendment makes no sense. Why do such damage to the relationships of every non-married couple in the state? Why destroy so many completely good and viable laws? The answer seems pretty clear: It was all a shell game for political leverage to help keep Republicans in their seats. People show up to vote down gay marriage, and vote straight party line (probably Republican) while they're at it.

The politicians gave the entire state's population the noose to hang themselves with, and got nothing out of it. Nice.

h-oooooly hell. Someone from texas with an informed unbiased opinion about an issue relating to gay marriage, containing an arguement against it that doesnt use the words "religion" or "conservative." Mad props to u my friend, I just wish more people read the acts and props on ballots. In general I have a no first stance with all of them because (especially here in Ca) they are a way for special interest to pass legislation without actually having to go through the legislature.

[SUPITSREV]

hey, i said i could be wrong!

[EyjaPia]

[QUOTE=Moniker]Well, see, that's the problem, you're making a wild assumption.

Democrats != liberal.
QUOTE]


No no no. I understand that there are conservative Democrats. My issue is that voters voted down the ban on abortion (a "liberal" move) and voted up stem cell research (also a classically "liberal" issue). However, gay marriage amendments are often passed with significant margins.

I guess I'm wondering why gay marriage causes people to be so conservative while abortion and stem cell research brings out their "liberal-ness".

[Moniker]

No no no. I understand that there are conservative Democrats. My issue is that voters voted down the ban on abortion (a "liberal" move) and voted up stem cell research (also a classically "liberal" issue). However, gay marriage amendments are often passed with significant margins.

I guess I'm wondering why gay marriage causes people to be so conservative while abortion and stem cell research brings out their "liberal-ness". Well, then you're making a different kind of mistake. Most people aren't single issue voters, and the ones that are, are radically left or right of center. For instance, I could heavily support the right to abortion, but be very fiscally conservative. If I have a candidate that's running for re-election and a ballot initiative on abortion in the same election, I could vote liberal for the initiative, and conservative for the candidate.

And when it comes down to it, sometimes you're simply voting for the candidate and not the party. Tennessee is obviously a red state, but Gov Bredesen won overwhelmingly because he's a damn good governor and has the people's interests at heart.

We had a state medical plan called TennCare where basically if you qualified, you were eligible for free healthcare, but it got severely corrupted, became buried in red tape, generally fucked up everything. Your prototypical democrat would have raised taxes to fund this failing giant. Bredesen, however, knew that the population does NOT want a state income tax, and decided to make massive cuts to TennCare, as well as cuts across the board. Everything got slashed -- education, services, subsidies, so that we wouldn't have an income tax.

Now, contrast with the fact that Tennessee voted in a gay marriage ban with an devastatingly overwhelming margin, and you can see my point.

[EyjaPia]

I understand what you're saying about voting for a conservative candidate and then for abortion.

Or even about being socially liberal but finding that being fiscally conservative is more important (as I read from your Tennessee example).

My problem is why people would be liberal about abortion and conservative about gay marriage. Neither one involves fiscal issues or even a particular candidate.

Both single issues, and Americans continually uphold abortion rights and simultaneously vote to ban gay marriage.

In the end, this may simply be a personal bias and I am fully willing to admit to that, but I just wondered if there was some social commentary I was missing.

[Tone-Loc]

Here was Tennessee Amendment, and it is nothing like Ohio and Virginia apparently...


Constitutional Amendment #1

Shall Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:

SECTION___. The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the
relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.



I have a question for Ohio and Virginia residents... why do you let people who violently beat their roomates, partner, whoever... off the hook, just because they don't apply to a Domestic Violence law of some sort? Why do you need a Domestic Violence law in the first place? Is it legal to beat the shit out of whomever you please in those states or something?

[dys]

Sweet, i'm glad there's common ground in Washington again.

So does this mean we can begin handing out health benefits and driver's licenses, social security and scholarships and most importantly, citizenship to the illegals in the country now, and say fuck you to all those that did it legally?

[sani]

i hope so dys, if that's the case, my grandma won't be needing rides from me ever again!

[Moniker]

My problem is why people would be liberal about abortion and conservative about gay marriage. Neither one involves fiscal issues or even a particular candidate.

Both single issues, and Americans continually uphold abortion rights and simultaneously vote to ban gay marriage. Well; look at it this way, both measure are reactions to change. The abortion ban was a massive change in SD, and people repealed it to back to the way it was (call it a self-correction). The gay marriage ban is reinforcing the existing situation, and is also fighting change.

Basically, it's harder to change something than keep it the same. That's the only other logical explanation I can think of.

[MidnightStalker]

h-oooooly hell. Someone from texas with an informed unbiased opinion about an issue relating to gay marriage, containing an arguement against it that doesnt use the words "religion" or "conservative." Mad props to u my friend, I just wish more people read the acts and props on ballots. In general I have a no first stance with all of them because (especially here in Ca) they are a way for special interest to pass legislation without actually having to go through the legislature.
Well, lets see if he actually did his own research, or if he's just listening some radio personality or TV media person. I did mine. Here's what I came up with, sources and all:


BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1

Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to
state:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize nother union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”?

Proposed Amendment

If approved by the voters, this proposed amendment will become part of the Constitution of Virginia. The proposed amendment adds a definition of marriage as the "union between one man and one woman" to the Constitution's Bill of Rights and prohibits Virginia and its counties, cities, and towns from creating or recognizing any legal status by any name which is comparable to marriage.

Marriage in the Commonwealth creates specific legal rights, benefits, and obligations for a man and a woman. There are other legal rights, benefits, and obligations which will continue to be available to unmarried persons, including the naming of an agent to make end-of-life decisions by an Advance Medical Directive (Code of Virginia § 54.1-2981), protections afforded under Domestic Violence laws (Code of Virginia § 18.2-57.2), ownership of real property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship (Code of Virginia § 55-20.1), or disposition of property by will (Code of Virginia § 64.1-46).

A "yes" vote on the proposed amendment will result in the addition of the proposed Section 15-A to Article I, the Bill of Rights. A "no" vote will mean that there will be no change made in Article I, the Bill of Rights.

FULL TEXT OF AMENDMENT

[Proposed new language is underlined. Existing language that is deleted is shown as stricken (stricken).]

Amend Article I of the Constitution of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15-A as follows:

ARTICLE I: BILL OF RIGHTS: Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Source: www.sbe.state.va.us/cms/documents/2006_Constitutional_Amendments/2006ques_marriage_APPROVED.pdf [PDF]
* I used the straight slash around the word Virginia instead of brackets to indicate my own addition (for clarity), due to format issues.



So what do Code of Virginia § 54.1-2981, Code of Virginia § 18.2-57.2, Code of Virginia § 55-20.1, and Code of Virginia § 64.1-46 actually say? Well...


Short title.

The provisions of this article shall be known and may be cited as the "Health Care Decisions Act."

(1983, c. 532, � 54-325.8:1; 1988, c. 765; 1992, cc. 748, 772.)
Source: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+54.1-2981
P.S. Source of actual Health Care Decisions Act can be found here (http://www.vsb.vipnet.org/sections/hl/add06/SummaryAct-2006.pdf). [PDF]


� 18.2-57.2. Assault and battery against a family or household member; penalty.

A. Any person who commits an assault and battery against a family or household member is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. Upon a conviction for assault and battery against a family or household member, where it is alleged in the warrant, information, or indictment on which a person is convicted, that such person has been previously convicted of two offenses against a family or household member of (i) assault and battery against a family or household member in violation of this section, (ii) malicious wounding in violation of � 18.2-51 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-51), (iii) aggravated malicious wounding in violation of � 18.2-51.2 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-51.2), (iv) malicious bodily injury by means of a substance in violation of � 18.2-52 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-52), or (v) an offense under the law of any other jurisdiction which has the same elements of any of the above offenses, in any combination, all of which occurred within a period of 20 years, and each of which occurred on a different date, such person is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

C. Whenever a warrant for a violation of this section is issued, the magistrate shall issue an emergency protective order as authorized by � 16.1-253.4 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-253.4), except if the defendant is a minor, an emergency protective order shall not be required.

D. The definition of "family or household member" in � 16.1-228 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-228) applies to this section.

(1991, c. 238; 1992, cc. 526, 886; 1996, c. 866; 1997, c. 603; 1999, cc. 697, 721, 807; 2004, cc. 448, 738.)
Source: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-57.2



� 55-20.1. Joint ownership in real and personal property.

Any persons may own real or personal property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship. When any person causes any real or personal property, or any written memorial of a chose in action, to be titled, registered, or endorsed in the name of two or more persons "jointly," as "joint tenants," in a "joint tenancy," or other similar language, such persons shall own the property in a joint tenancy without survivorship as provided in � 55-20 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-20). If, in addition, the expression "with survivorship," or any equivalent language, is employed in such titling, registering or endorsing, it shall be presumed that such persons are intended to own the property as joint tenants with the right of survivorship as at common law. This section is not applicable to multiple party accounts under �� 6.1-125 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+6.1-125.1).1 through 6.1-125.16 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+6.1-125.16), or to any other matter specifically governed by another provision of this code.

(1999, c. 196; 2000, c. 331; 2001, c. 718.)
Source: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-20.1



� 64.1-46. Who may make a will; what estate may be disposed of.

Every person not prohibited by � 64.1-47 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+64.1-47) may, by will, dispose of any estate to which he shall be entitled, at his death, and which, if not so disposed of, would devolve upon his heirs, personal representative or next of kin. The power hereby given shall extend to any estate, right or interest to which the testator may be entitled at his death, notwithstanding he may become so entitled subsequently to the execution of the will.

(Code 1950, � 64-48; 1968, c. 656.)
Source: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+64.1-46



No fluff.

[Zogo]

if we're trying to legislate morality through disallowing gay marriages then why shouldn't gays be put in jail?

So does this mean we can begin handing out health benefits and driver's licenses, social security and scholarships and most importantly, citizenship to the illegals in the country now, and say fuck you to all those that did it legally?

yes. social security? aren't all illegals already paying into that failed system?

[MidnightStalker]

Because it would be unconstitutional. It's a free right to choose who you like and in which way. It's not your free right to marry them (e.g. your pet, your child, your sister, same sex).

[Yesbama]

Because it would be unconstitutional. It's a free right to choose who you like and in which way. It's not your free right to marry them (e.g. your pet, your child, your sister, same sex).

How are those examples at all comparable? What the hell?

[Zogo]

Because it would be unconstitutional. It's a free right to choose who you like and in which way. It's not your free right to marry them (e.g. your pet, your child, your sister, same sex).

where in the constitution is marriage addressed?

and if jailing gays is unconstitutional then why aren't conservatives pushing for an amendment to be added?

[Moniker]

and if jailing gays is unconstitutional then why aren't conservatives pushing for an amendment to be added? because most conservatives don't believe in jailing people for simply being gay.

god, I can't believe I'm actually typing this resposne.

[dys]

If that was the case then Moniker, half this forum would disappear.

[MidnightStalker]

where in the constitution is marriage addressed?
That's the whole point. It isn't in the U.S. Consitution. As of now, it's the state's decision. Neverthless, you may have heard of the Federal Marriage Admendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups

[Zogo]

because most conservatives don't believe in jailing people for simply being gay.

yea, but if it's against the bible then why not? I'm trying to find the logic here.

That's the whole point. It isn't in the U.S. Consitution. As of now, it's the state's decision.

if it's not in the constitution then why should the gov't have power to license marriages anyway?

[Tone-Loc]

Marriage licensing is handled by state law, not the US Constitution I think...

I think with most of the people I talk to when it comes to marriage definition is that its a matter of that there has to be a line drawn somewhere. So if a line is going to be drawn then they believe it should be drawn at one man + one woman, because they feel that is the natural order of things.

As someone who is pretty much a libertarian/constutionalist, I am still trying to find my own solid stance on this issue. I simply didn't vote on the TN amendment for a variety of reasons, one of them being my own uncertainties on the issue of where the line should be drawn. That, and I don't think constitutional amendments at any level should be decided by a popular vote in a general election. I mean that's what why we have a republic is it not?

[Zogo]

Marriage licensing is handled by state law, not the US Constitution I think...

is it in each state constitution? I don't know myself..but I'm still wondering why the gov't should control a religious institution like this.

So if a line is going to be drawn then they believe it should be drawn at one man + one woman, because they feel that is the natural order of things.

well the line has been moved all over the place before. just 40 years ago blacks weren't allowed to marry whites in certain states.

[stas]

well the line has been moved all over the place before. just 40 years ago blacks weren't allowed to marry whites in certain states.

almost as stupid and rehashed as the gay marriage leads to marrying your dog line of though. genetics and someones choice are not the same.

[MidnightStalker]

is it in each state constitution? I don't know myself..but I'm still wondering why the gov't should control a religious institution like this.
They're not. The government doesn't have a say in the churches decision to accept gays in their religion or not. The purpose gays want to marry is for the governmental, not the religious, benefits that come with the civil union, because nearly all religions have banished or condemned homosexuality already.

[thEnd]

almost as stupid and rehashed as the gay marriage leads to marrying your dog line of though. genetics and someones choice are not the same.

Wins ignorant statement of the thread.

[xero]

Wow, we got really off topic. I wasn't looking to turn this into a gay marriage thread.

The cornerstone of my post was to point out that because people don't read legislation, their 'representatives' try to pass things that are absurd and poorly written so that they can garner a view votes -- and that they're even willing to do this at the expense of the majority of the population's couples.

It's good to see that Arizona voted their 'gay marriage' ban amendment down, which is almost identical in structure to the now-active Ohio and Virginia bans. However, I'm also aware that it took a hard-driving campaign by its opponents, who had to educate the public that the ban would adversely effect the legal status of all non-married straight couples as well as gays. They had to run TV spots and buy billboard space months in advance of election day to make sure people who were curious about all the the stipulations of the amendment were informed -- and they had to simultaneously counter the proponents of the ban, who went on to call them supporters of the National Man Boy Love Association or fag lovers who were out to spread the homosexual agenda. This campaign to educate people on the text of the bill, combined with the high population of non-married senior citizens (who have all sorts of medical and estate legal agreements) and college students (who have real-estate agreements, business agreements, or medical agreements) was enough to get it voted down.

Everyone who posts here regularly should know my stance on gay marriage by now (that civil unions should be permitted by the government, but actual ceremonial marriage by the church should be decided by the religious institution since they're a private entity -- either that or there should be no benefits to being married to someone else -- I do not support any form of constitutional discrimination), but I'm not posting this to focus on the social issues associated with gay marriage/civil unions/whatever. This is to place the focus on the legal issues associated with legislating discrimination, and how it negatively impacts people who don't know what they're voting for.

[Zogo]

I'm also aware that it took a hard-driving campaign by its opponents, who had to educate the public that the ban would adversely effect the legal status of all non-married straight couples as well as gays.

non-married couples in what way?

almost as stupid and rehashed as the gay marriage leads to marrying your dog line of though. genetics and someones choice are not the same.

no, but it is another proof that marriage has changed and is not as sanctimonious as it appears.

They're not. The government doesn't have a say in the churches decision to accept gays in their religion or not.

yea I understand that..this whole issue could be avoided if the gov't would stop requiring licenses that give paltry benefits just to control behavior. if we look back in history we see that licenses were created to prevent blacks from marrying whites.

The purpose gays want to marry is for the governmental, not the religious, benefits that come with the civil union, because nearly all religions have banished or condemned homosexuality already.

some do want it for religious purposes.

[Moniker]

some do want it for religious purposes. I guess they're shit out of luck, aren't they?

[Yesbama]

I guess they're shit out of luck, aren't they?


Are you religious? Just curious.

[Zogo]

I guess they're shit out of luck, aren't they?

for the time being. history has shown that societies become more liberal as time goes on.

[Moniker]

Are you religious? Just curious. I'm a holiday Catholic.

for the time being. history has shown that societies become more liberal as time goes on. Hey, at least you've got that going for ya!

[Zogo]

Hey, at least you've got that going for ya!

what going for me?