?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

a little hopeful, a little disgusted

Okay, America. We voted for "change we can believe in". Hopefully that's more than a prom theme.



That's the first step. Now, what is this change we're believing in? And how are we going to make it happen? Affordable health care, first-class education, and fixing "this whole economy thing", yeah?

Hoo boy.

The disgust: California seems to have voted bigotry into the constitution. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I'm hoping that gets the old judicial smack-down from the US Supreme Court.

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
nalene
Nov. 5th, 2008 10:20 am (UTC)
Ya. Sadness on Prop 8. I can't believe that it could happen in a state as liberal as CA. One can only hope for it to be overturned.
I'm glad 1a,2, 4 and nine went through. I'm upset about 8 and 5. I guess you can't win them all. It could have been worse, we could have ended up facing 4-8 years of The Palinator *pukes*.
kaolinfire
Nov. 5th, 2008 10:39 am (UTC)
yeh. I'm way happy on 1a. 2 is cool. 4 failing is good imo.

I'm with you on the 5+8 upset.

9, from the "for 9" ads, sounded like it was pushing the bounds of "innocent before proven guilty", which was the heart of what had me against it.

And I'm really annoyed about 11 (passing), but can't muster much more than that. I suppose it depends on how it gets abused, and what monies it really winds up wasting.

I'm thrilled the MTA "R" Traffic Relief Sales Tax Hike went through.

More locally, I'm thrilled measure CF went through, which might finally mean a permanent highschool for the area instead of the mobile trailers that have been used for the last 15 years (since the hs was founded?)

Now we need a library.

Win some, lose some, yup yup.
nalene
Nov. 5th, 2008 12:06 pm (UTC)
4 is definitely a personal choice that I believe everyone has merit in their opinion so not an issue for debate. =]

I DID NOT get a chance to look at the props properly, in regards to 9 I really think victims of violent crimes should really get the chance to be heard. THAT being said, I hope that it is NOT abused and is fairly applied. Wishful thinking, I know.

11, I really have no clue on that, but it honestly didn't even seem like a subject worthy of anything (especially tax dollars) to me so I voted no on that one.

I voted yes on 10 based off of the blurb in the sample ballot. I feel that there should be a program that allows people to get alternative fuel vehicles. I would really like to see a complete governmental overhaul (intervention) in the transportation arena in general. High speed trains, better public transportation and the phasing out of gas guzzling pollution generating urban assault vehicles.

I'm glad to see that people are starting to become more active environmentally. Prop 2 is a GREAT START but that area will hopefully get more attention down the road as we evolve as a species. ;)

nalene
Nov. 5th, 2008 12:06 pm (UTC)
Oh, I voted yes on 'R' as well. =]
nentwined_nnwm
Nov. 5th, 2008 12:11 pm (UTC)
the info re: 10 that I have is that most of the money would not go to anything except a small monopoly of natural gas producers--it had exclusions for most or all of the renewable resources. Though I don't have too much documentation to back that up, sadly. Juggling half-truths and all...

11: yeah, that was pretty much it. :)

prop2 is interesting, and I'm honestly amazed at the response to it. I didn't see any commercials for or against, just went based on the voter ballot... and the "against" arguments were rather pathetic, there. :)

Funny to see where prop 5 passed... humboldt, mendocino, marin, san francisco, and santa cruz. and that's it. (impressively, most strongly in san francisco, then santa cruz, then the rest)

still refreshing election returns... (and reading "Life in a medieval city")
ken_schneyer
Nov. 5th, 2008 03:38 pm (UTC)
The graphic is striking, but would've been more believable if you hadn't given all the white presidents white hair. I mean, really.

I agree that the California development is depressing, but I doubt that there's a federal constitutional or statutory argument that can be made. The wording of the new amendment is simply, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It merely makes explicit what has been the de facto law in most states for 200 years. The only constitutional challenge that I can see would be based on Equal Protection. But the discrimination in the amendment is gender-based, consequently subject only to "intermediate scrutiny." This means that if there is any direct relation between the amendment and any important state interest, the law stands.

It's true that Colorado's Amendment Two was defeated on Equal Protection grounds, but Amendment Two was worded very broadly and negated the power of the legislature to pass any nondiscrimination laws based on sexual orientation. There was no way such an overbroad law could pass Equal Protection scrutiny.
kaolinfire
Nov. 6th, 2008 12:00 am (UTC)
> The graphic is striking, but would've been more believable if you hadn't given all the white presidents white hair. I mean, really.

Agreed. My only defense is I found it somewhere (unattached to creator) and had to share.

> It's true that Colorado's Amendment Two was defeated on Equal Protection grounds

Yeah, and I think that's my only basic hope. That or people will just learn to better allow each other equal rights (if not, perhaps, _basic_ rights) in time.

If California changed its civil partnerships to something along the lines of: "Civil partnerships allow all rights and benefits under marriage and can be read interchangeably with the same except for civil partnerships being between any two consenting adults." (and sure, there's loopholes in that, but at least the gist of it) ... then I might be temporarily satisfied, though the whole "separate but equal" argument has been slapped down in the past. (or maybe because the whole "separate but equal" argument has been slapped down in the past). Though admittedly that was also a broader issue, and inherently less equal.
lunablack
Nov. 5th, 2008 11:30 pm (UTC)
I hadn't heard the update on prop 8 until now.

Someday, somewhere, if someone can explain how the heck it matters who marries whom (short of inbreeding), and make sense, I will give them a cookie. They will also have a winning lottery ticket in their pocket that they didn't actually buy and then go draw a couple of straights in poker, 'cos I haven't heard anything that remotely works so far.

We'll see what happens next.
kaolinfire
Nov. 5th, 2008 11:52 pm (UTC)
I woke up to some emails saying "Don't give up, it's not called yet!". But the US across the board agreed to similar things.

er, and it looks like it has been called.

PROPOSITION 8-SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN
Total Reporting:99%
Name Votes Pct.
YES 5,372,029 52%
NO 4,868,197 48%
LAST UPDATE: Nov-05-2008, 03:50 PM Pacific Standard Time


Edited at 2008-11-05 11:55 pm (UTC)
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

February 2016
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
2829     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars