?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

At least it's still California...


Oh, and I'm at least thankful that I live in California, a liberal state, which went to Kerry and passed at least a few of the statewide initiatives I supported. We also have the most comprehensive domestic partnerships in the country, which are on par with civil unions and marriages. So, although moving to Canada sounds like a lovely idea (I did toy with moving to Toronto at one point), I'll be staying right here. Maybe I can improve things slightly if I stay.

Comments

( 20 comments — Comment )
bescincimevsim
Nov. 3rd, 2004 09:35 am (UTC)
You'd trade in all that lovely sunshine for the world's tallest free-standing structure?
Sucks about the result - but take solice in the fact your 55 electoral votes put Kerry in contention to the very end...
akirashima
Nov. 3rd, 2004 09:42 am (UTC)
i am going to go to sleep for a long long time now
no not killing nmyself
dead people can't run for president ....yet
(amazing that they vote though)

anyway just to damn depressing to stay awake anymore
Oh and be proud of PA we were blue too
sistercoyote
Nov. 3rd, 2004 09:48 am (UTC)
I think I would move to Canada if I thought I could.

But my choice of divinity schools is in California.

And I miss California.
princessmuse
Nov. 3rd, 2004 10:21 am (UTC)
I saw that one state successfully voted an Independant into a senate seat. It wasn't you guys, was it? I liked one of our Independants here in PA, and everyone told me there was no way and Independant would ever get a seat, so I'm curious about what happened. My best guess was Cali, since you guys tend toward a much kinder open-mindedness!
esprix
Nov. 3rd, 2004 10:53 am (UTC)
Wasn't us - Democrats won.
oxymoronnyc
Nov. 3rd, 2004 01:18 pm (UTC)
I believe you may be thinking of Bernard Sanders, the Independent member of the House, from Vermont - he's a socialist, and caucuses with Democrats.

The Independent Senator, Jim Jeffords, is also from Vermont and also caucuses with the Democrats. He's a former Republican from the old New England wing. He wasn't up for election this year -- it'll be 2006 -- but I think his seat is considered pretty safe, assuming he runs again.
luvcatcher
Nov. 3rd, 2004 11:18 am (UTC)
Oregon has just passed a measure banning gay marriages. 57% voted to pass this measure to define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.
esprix
Nov. 3rd, 2004 11:37 am (UTC)
All 11 anti-gay marriage measures up for vote passed.
luvcatcher
Nov. 3rd, 2004 11:44 am (UTC)
When will we ever learn that the votes of the majority doesn't serve to protect the rights of the minority?
esprix
Nov. 3rd, 2004 11:50 am (UTC)
Well that's the point - the right keeps screaming about "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" when the reality is that it was designed that way to serve as a "checks and balances" when the majority would trample the rights of the minority - THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. If we'd taken a vote in the 50's then blacks would still have separate schools and wouldn't be allowed to marry whites - it was the judges that said, no, that's not right.

It amazes me how people don't get that.
darrelx
Nov. 3rd, 2004 03:53 pm (UTC)
Actually, the Supreme Court is supposed to hear about existing laws to rule if they are consitutional, not be creating new laws. That's where the abuse is happening.

New laws can only be created in Congress or by the President, and each of them have to be ratified by the other. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be drafting NEW law by including them inside their decisions.
esprix
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:44 pm (UTC)
I don't believe the Supreme Court IS "creating new laws." Now individual states' courts, they're making mandates, but individual states' laws are different from those that govern the USSC.

But, again, if racial segregation had been "protected" in the constitution like Bush is suggesting we "protect" marriage, it doesn't make it any less bigoted or discriminatory.
darrelx
Nov. 4th, 2004 08:32 am (UTC)
FWIW, I don't agree with making a constitutional ammendment regarding marriage (either for or against gay marriage). I simply don't believe that it belongs in the consitution, as it violates state's rights.

However, I do understand Bush's motives, as several US District courts were overstepping their authority and the only way he saw to shut them down was to launch a constitutional ammendment. He was wrong in that action, but it did expose the abuse of the system that was occuring in the courts.

For the record, if I were in congress, I would have voted against the ammendment. We know how 98 of the 100 senators voted and *only* Kerry and Edwards were not present to cast their ballot, and I suspect that was only because they would hurt their chances of re-election either way they voted. On the one hand, they'd lose the entire gay vote. On the other hand, they'd have to finally take a solid position on gay marriage (not just on gay unions, which their platform talks about, but actually on the subject of marriage) which woudl jeopardize another chunk of their constituency. By not voting at all, they were able to lead the gay vote into thinking that they would support gay marriage, without ever saying it (Kerry actually said the opposite in the 3rd debate) and still tell their more evangelical supporters that they would protect marriage.
esprix
Nov. 4th, 2004 10:14 am (UTC)
I don't agree that any US courts were overstepping their bounds (whether or not a state court was I don't know, as I'm not familiar with the individual states' laws regarding their courts).

Kerry and Edwards were both very clear on their positions - they opposed the amendment, but they also opposed gay marriage per se, although they supported civil unions and domestic partnerships (leaving it to the states). He also voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. In no way was the LGBT community "fooled" into thinking he supported marriage because he's been very clear about it throughout the campaign, but we (mostly) voted for him anyway because he was the lesser of two evils.

How sad - my civil rights are based upon the lesser of two evils. {sigh}
mroctober
Nov. 3rd, 2004 12:06 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I'm glad I'm a Blue-r too (NJ). Though in 2006 I'm going damn Navy (Massachusetts). Why would anyone gay live Red? I hope there's a mass queer exodus.
gingy
Nov. 3rd, 2004 12:53 pm (UTC)
We're in a blue state as well. Fat lot of good it does.

You can't leave. You pretty up the place.
harlkyn
Nov. 3rd, 2004 12:59 pm (UTC)
Yes, thank goodness we live in California, a liberal state. I'm sure when the terrorists plan their next attack (which they will, since Bush is still president and he's not likely to change any policies regarding Iraq, or Israel, or the Middle East in general) they'll say, "Oh, let's not attack anything in California, they voted for Kerry."

That is my biggest fear of Bush being re-elected, that we'd just be opening ourselves up to more attacks.
darrelx
Nov. 3rd, 2004 03:48 pm (UTC)
Maybe I can improve things slightly if I stay.

Well that's the spirit! And that, in a nutshell, is a grand part of the american way.

If you believe in something, stand up for it. If the majority believes as you do, then you will get your way. Your right to speak up about your beliefs will always be protected.

If you run away from the fight, you've solved nothing.

I'm tired of all the depressed moaning in many of my friends' posts because their candidate lost. They should just be happy that they live in the most free society on the planet, and that their voices can always still be heard.

It's not the end of the world just because your candidate didn't make it. There's still a very strong system of checks and balances in this country, and that is never going to be taken away.
esprix
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:46 pm (UTC)
On this we can wholeheartedly agree. I don't think all the dire warnings will come true (gays rounded up and put in concentration camps), but I do feel strongly enough about protecting my civil liberties and civil rights that I'm going to keep fighting for them, as it will not only benefit me but a whole hell of a lot of other people, too. Democracy only works when the people are involved and all that.
lilairen
Nov. 3rd, 2004 06:01 pm (UTC)
And here in Massachusetts, the governor's attempts to get his hand-picked challengers to replace the legislators who are opposed to amending our Constitution failed. Completely.

We here on the right cost (north) are holding the line with you guys on the left coast.
( 20 comments — Comment )

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner