?

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: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