I'm sorry to change the subject, but this news made me jump for joy. Al Franken can't beat a Republican in Minnesota by a landslide? Wow... Maybe Minnesotan's see him for the divisive jerk that others do..
Al Franken debating Ann Coluter? Yep... That was a classic. Fun to watch, like looking at a wreck on the side of the road.
But that's me.
- Bill
Challenger Al Franken said this morning he would exercise his right to a recount. That could delay the final result until December, a state official said today.
By PATRICIA LOPEZ and KEVIN DUCHSCHERE, Star Tribune staff writers
Sen. Norm Coleman is leading Democratic challenger Al Franken in one of the most bitter U.S. Senate races in Minnesota history.
With 100 percent of the 4,130 precincts reporting, Coleman had an unofficial margin of several hundred votes out of nearly 2.9 million cast. Recounts are required in races with a winning margin of less than one half of 1 percent.
This comment from a local.
It's reassuring that Coleman was able to pull a victory out of the most adverse circumstances. Franken in spite of a flood of money from out-of-state sources was unable to convince the voters to go along with the Democrat victory in the rest of the country. Coleman has been an effective Senator representing the state of Minnesota and his reelection should be applauded. He has taken a balanced and reasonable approach to problem solving and will act as a counterweight to the overwhelmingly radical liberal Democrat majority in the United States Senate.
It has long been my position that marriage should be left to churches, and civil unions made available to consenting adults without discrimination. That is a polite position which permits churches to do whatever they see fit, avoids coopting a term sacred to some people who don't want others to drink out of their fountains, and protects equality.
Rant <on>
That wasn't on the ballot yesterday, merely the option to tell gay people that their unions can't be called marriage. There is no functional reason for this. Yes on 8 people said gay marriage would be taught in schools if 8 didn't pass. Fact: 8 failing would change nothing, gay marriage isn't being taught in schools now, and gay marriage is still a legitimate topic for discussion in schools. Yes on 8 people said Obama supported them;* that was a bald faced lie, and he's been clear he opposed it (along with just about everyone in a public advocacy position such as most legislators, Feinstein, the Governator, 36 newspapers, our conservative San Diego mayor, dozens of religious groups, civic organizations, and civil rights organizations). It turns out the Church of Latter Day Saints spent tens of millions on the campaign, and bussed in hundreds of people to pose as Californians opposed to gay marriage, and ran phone banks in Utah to call Californians as if they were locals, you know, people with a legitimate say on the matter. I can see why, though, because the Mormons have always been about traditional marriage between a 50 year old man and a half dozen terrified teenage girls, as long as none of them are homos. Hey, and if they were right about Jesus hiking in the midwest, they're probably right about this, too.
As for Biden and Obama, well, yeah, they've got to not come out as wacko liberals during campaigns. It's part of the game. I wonder what they would have done as mere citizens. I do know this about their religions: Catholics know what it's like to have laws used against them, and they were instrumental in defeating the prejudiced Ballot Measure 9 years ago. They also have gay marriage over in predominately Catholic Spain, where no brimstone has fallen, no priests have been forced to marry sodomites, and where.... nothing has happened, just like in Mass and Cali. There's a flurry of marriages when a bunch of delayed unions are recognized, then it dies down (there aren't that many of us anyway). Revenues go up a bit from the tourism; otherwise, it's a yawn. The nice Catholic lady who stopped to talk to me at the polls in La Jolla about this came to that conclusion after our discussion and walked to the polls saying, "well, we don't support birth control I guess, but we dont want a ban written into the Constitution either." Good for her--and when times move on in California, when some of the people educated to judge same sex unions get older and die off and are replaced by younger people who didn't hear that message and know from personal experience we're not out to overthrow the nation, things will be equalized and 8 will go in the same trashcan as Bowers v Hardwick and other mistakes like Dred Scott.
The thing is, gay people can still get CU'd in California, and that provides the same rights. So I'm not too worried about this. This was basically just a 70 million dollar exercise in name calling. Yes on 8 says it was about the name "marriage" which they own like a copyright. But you don't have to take something from anyone else to enjoy what you have yourself, and the real point here was to tell all the Californians who are a little different: you're not equal yet. It was name calling, all right, and I haven't felt like this since I was at UVA and the prejudice was overt. I feels like someone giving me the finger or tearing down fliers or making threats in emails or graffiti or making shooting motions at me the way they did in VA or sometimes even MA. My fundamental rights are about the same, but people wanted me to know they've out to get me. In that debate, it doesn't really matter if it was barely Yes or barely No on Prop 8. It's sad enough people were willing to check the box "ELIMINATES rights..." to even make it close.
In other states, things were worse. Antimarriage amendments passed in several states by wider margins; one passed a law preventing gays from adopting. Time to move, gay people--oh, orphaned kids awaiting parents? F You, we have to thumb our nose at our neighbors.
Now it's time for a t shirt... can't decide...
1) California 2008: Chickens rights Yes, Gay rights No.
2) I lost my right to marry.... remind me, how does that make any families safer?
3) Gays can't marry anymore... Guess I won't get that divorce afterall.
4) If you voted to take away my right to marry... *I* still support *your* freedoms
Any votes?
*Lastly, they said it would protect families. This one IS true. Gay zombies can no longer eat straight babies after nailing them to pentagrams. And we all know the gay families attacked by Prop 8 don't exist or matter.
When the legislature passes a ban on something, and a judge overrules it, well, then you have the public's option to put in the change themselves. That's how the cookie crumbles. I guess most of California disagrees with you, Ian. Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.
Valkenar wrote:
Seriously though, I am quite disappointed with California and what looks to be a yes vote on the gay marriage ban. I really thought they were better than that.
Tsk, tsk... it's just terrible when people vote for what they believe in, isn't it? Some people need more than 'Change' and 'Hope.'
Obama wouldn't support Gay Marriage.
Clinton wouldn't support Gay Marriage.
McCain wouldn't support Gay Marriage.
Jason: I'm aware of how the process works. I'm disappointed by your attitude that anything is alright since the majority voted for it. Probably no one has tried to take away your rights, eh?
What would the public have voted for when asked about slavery in 1800? Women's voting? Was prohibition a good idea? How many people would vote to prevent muslims from taking office? Certainly at some point they would have said "No."
Your glib tautology that they voted for what they voted for and everyone has to just deal with it is what people say when they don't need to analyze an issue because they agree with the outcome. As to your points about our politicians, I might ask:
McCain supported Prop 8 and California crushed him in their voting.
Obama OPPOSED 8 and Californians supported him overwhelmingly.
Clinton opposed 8 and Californians voted for him to.
Schwarzenegger, our republican governator, opposed Prop 8 and Californians generally support him. And Shriver and Feinstein.
Our legislature supported and voted for same sex marriage several years ago and Californians elected them to lead them.
Californians have always been on the cutting edge of freedoms.
So why shouldn't Californians support gay marriage, OR, at a minimum (pay close attention) OPPOSE using our Constitution to eliminate a right in agreement with the Governator (executive), our legislature, and our courts? You know, the whole government? Like the Catholic lady realized, disapproving of oral contraceptives is different from supporting changing the Constitution to deny access for everyone. Live and let live!
So analyze the issue--or are we going to leave it to "that's the way the cookie crumbles?" Would you have given the same lecture to black people had California amended their Constitution to overturn the ruling from judges (yes, supporting rights, err, legislating from the bench) who recognized the rights of interracial couples to marry, changing "traditional" pure race marriage, and paving the way for the national shift (again, those pesky judges) who wrote Loving v. Virginia?
Panther used to say this kind of nonsense was like having a dozen wolves and a sheep sit down to vote on what to have for dinner.
IJ wrote:
1) California 2008: Chickens rights Yes, Gay rights No.
2) I lost my right to marry.... remind me, how does that make any families safer?
3) Gays can't marry anymore... Guess I won't get that divorce afterall.
4) If you voted to take away my right to marry... *I* still support *your* freedoms
Keep it coming, Ian.
<sigh...>
I sincerely hope all parties can come to an agreement here, and we can live on peacefully.
I don't understand your post, fivedragons. I guess that was an attempt at satire. Sorry... it's been a long day.
You do know that Ian and I know each other, right?
I sigh because I love all my brothers and sisters. And right now, they don't agree. I have dear gay friends, lesbian friends, christian friends, jewish friends, muslim friends, social conservative friends, libertarian friends, liberal friends...
Or maybe I sigh because J-Lo hasn't thrown herself at me. Yet...
Hey Jason, what the ##### do you have to do with anyone else's right to cohabit and become a family unit with who they choose, or with who their genetic makeup or whatever the scientific terminology is, decides for them?
Why would you or anyone else, feel the need to say anything whatsoever about it?
You know, people talk about evolution and what is right and what is wrong, but when it really comes down to it, the only constant is fear, and people contracting into little balls of resistance against anything that threatens their miniscule self centered view of the world.
People like to use their fears as fuel for anger and righteousness, and fool themselves that by doing so, they become stronger.
When in reality, every excuse to judge and separate yourself from others becomes further weakness in your moral fiber, for to judge others is nothing less than the act of bringing judgement down on your own imperfect and flawed self.
When we die, we are judged, not by god, or a jury of our peers, but by the lies that we cling to, in our fruitless and empty search for self righteousness and pride.
My suggestion for a measure for Cali (or the whole USA) in maybe 8 years or so would be to take government out of marriage, which many consider a wholly religious affair, and one which the government really can't bless anyway. And similarly, keep religion out of civil unions, for which there is no reasonable evidence that suggests gender considerations should affect. Respects religious viewpoints, traditional marriage, equality, and limits the involvement of government where it ought not tread. Should be a treat for conservatives.
The sweetener I would add--which I do believe in--is that traditional marriage should be strengthened, not by kicking around second class citizens, but by having a waiting period, limiting easy divorce, keeping Britney Spears the heck away from it, and making it darned hard to father a child without taking good care of it. Hold EVERYONE to those standards.
I'm really offended when traditional marriage people tell me I'm going to screw up the institution when I deliberately didn't get married when I had my chance, because I only want to do it when I am 100% sure. Meanwhile, a murderous child molester can marry an active substance abuser he met in a Vegas casino in half an hour and conceive triplets the same night. Praise the lord!
Jason Rees wrote:
Tsk, tsk... it's just terrible when people vote for what they believe in, isn't it?
Nope, just terrible when people want to strip rights from their fellow citizens for no reason.
As someone panicked about what Obama might do to your gun rights, you should be a little less keen on depriving people of their rights just because a lot of people think it's a good idea.
Now Ian points out that it's not quite a civil rights issue in this particular case because California does provide equal protection. That's definitely good to know. So tell me, do you really think it's reasonable to put on the ballot a measure whose primary purpose is just to demean and insult? Is that not just disgustingly petty and cruel? Is that what you think America should be about?
