?

Log in

No account? Create an account
How I'm voting. - CERisE's Testing for L

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile

February 5th, 2008


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
12:37 pm - How I'm voting.
President: Barack Obama.

Hillary projects a very strong feeling of a "nanny state". She's on record as having been horrified by the "Hot Coffee" mod of GTA: San Andreas. She's been on record supporting an awful lot of RIAA issues. Obama doesn't have that history.

I like Clinton's plan for universal health care, but Obama is at least for universal access to health care. That's a good start.

I've heard some people point out that Obama's against gay marriage. He's on record bringing his religious beliefs into it as well. However, Obama is also for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", supports equal rights for alphabet soup folk (read: GLBT + whatever other letters you think need to get tacked on there) in adoption and employment, civil unions, expanding hate crime legislation, and voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and a Federal Marriage amendment which would have prevented gay marriage.

Obama is *not* anti-gay.

Propositions:
91: No. The only argument submitted for this is a "PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS" from the authors of the prop.
92: No. I like the idea of lowering Community College tuition, but I don't like that the funding to make up the difference has to come from somewhere.
93: No. It brings about a reduction of 2 years in term limits, nonspecific to whether they were spent in the state senate or state assembly, while resetting the limits for some 42 members of the state legislature who would term out.
94-97: Yes. The stuff about this being a sweet deal for the four tribes mentioned is true. The stuff about this working against the other ones is false. There's nothing in this that stops any tribe from developing a similar agreement. Additionally, it brings in extra revenue from the state from the pockets of the people who are separating themselves from their money. I'm all for that.

(34 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:February 5th, 2008 10:02 pm (UTC)

Re: Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
First off, I'm pretty picky about anyone who throws out a number like "1/3" without substantiation. There's some things that just don't apply for a gay couple vs. a hetero couple and I'm sure your 1/3 includes those.

Secondly, this fits pretty squarely in point two. This is not a step backwards. This is not promoting the status quo. Civil unions are unquestionably a step in the right direction.

Take the battles you can win. Win enough of them and you'll notice one day that you won the war.
From:charlio1
Date:February 5th, 2008 10:13 pm (UTC)

Re: Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
When you get a chance check out our trailer on Gay Marriage. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity & stats on the issue:) www.OUTTAKEonline.com
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:February 5th, 2008 10:54 pm (UTC)

Re: Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
I just watched it and I can say that it hasn't changed my opinion one whit.

If gay marriage is going to happen in this country, it needs a place to start -- the speaker in that trailer said as much. Civil unions are a pretty darn good starting place.

As for the bit about "being happy" about civil unions vs. gay marriage, I'm not counseling that one accept civil unions instead of gay marriage. I'm saying it's a step on the path to the establishment of a snowball's chance in hell for gay marriage.

Now here's what really gets me. You're the fourth person over the last year I've encountered on this point who has suggested that civil unions aren't good enough. Why the heck are you so damn insistent on everything all at once or nothing at all? You don't eat an elephant -- no pun intended -- in one sitting. Take what you can get and work on the rest as you can. It's worked for minorities in this country. It's worked for women in this country. It'll work for gay people too.
From:charlio1
Date:February 5th, 2008 11:08 pm (UTC)

Re: Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
Well I don't know where the others are coming from but I'm here in Massachusetts where Gay Marriage is the Law. I agree that Civil Unions are a step for some states but once you experience total equality why would you want less?
[User Picture]
From:chibalerasui
Date:February 6th, 2008 12:41 am (UTC)

Re: Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
Actually, in at least one state (being from Canada and planning on moving down, I did some research), civil unions are afforded the -same- equality as marriage, same benefits, the only difference is the title. Look at it this way. You may be in a place that allows full gay marriage titles, but would you prefer the rest of the states who currently ban gay relationships as afforded any benefits to suffer simply because one or two states refuse to accept anything less than gay marriage, because that's what they already have?

An example would be the huff going around about a recent petition, I don't remember what exactly it was for, but to allow gay people to have certain benefits, while not including transgender people in the bill. It simply will not pass with trans included, but if it passes just with gays included, that's a step in the right direction, yet so many people are against the bill even being proposed -unless- they include trans. Why force people to wait on something they can get, and possibly cause them to not even get at all, because you want all or nothing?

Gay marriage is perfectly legal across Canada, but I'll settle for a simple civil union when I live with my partner in the US, because even if it doesn't provide full benefits, it provides some, and it's a step closer to all.

I honestly don't think they'll remove gay marriage in the states that do allow it, if they do start allowing civil unions in others, so Massachusetts doesn't have anything to lose, while the other states have everything to gain, even if it is a little at a time.
[User Picture]
From:chibalerasui
Date:February 6th, 2008 12:56 am (UTC)

Re: Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
I should add that he lives in Wisconsin, where any sort of gay union is outright banned and unrecognized, period. That's where I'm looking at living. I'd much rather have even the barest of benefits from a recognized civil union than that, which can lead into getting more.
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:February 6th, 2008 01:00 am (UTC)

Re: Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
Why force people to wait on something they can get, and possibly cause them to not even get at all, because you want all or nothing?

Well, unfortunately, there's an easy answer to that situation. The minority of trans people are afraid that if they don't inexorably bind themselves to the gay movement, then they'll need to build a whole other movement to get their rights passed.

That's understandable in some political situations, but I'd find it hard to believe that there's a particularly large set of people who support gay people and don't support trans folk.

(Also, aren't civil unions and marriage equivalent in Canada? Or was that the one state you were talking about? ; ) )
[User Picture]
From:chibalerasui
Date:February 6th, 2008 01:08 am (UTC)

Re: Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
They are, actually, so far as I know. Heck, you're considered common law married (at least in Ontario) after simply living with your partner for one year, no matter the sexual orientation. This means you need to share taxes and support, but also affords you the benefits of a civil union or legal marriage liscence.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com