the thing with AZ is, in 04 they overwhelmingly voted to make same sex marriage illegal, and otherwise null void. so, this is basically a vote on whether or not to re-ban it. and small margin or no, the number of people who want to extra-special discriminate still outnumber those with a lick of sense.

you know, my last semester of college i was on a real tear about how much i hate the gay bashing marriage banners. it was the only time i wrote to my congressmen. i got a form letter back from john mccain saying, thanks, but i'd really like to see the state constitution amended just the same. i saw it as a civil rights issue then, and i still do. dom flemons overheard me saying that once, and said that i was wrong because the difference between black people and white people is something you can see, unlike the difference between gay people and straight people. even if that had, you know, ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING, it still makes no sense because when two men go for a marriage license, the difference between them and the other couples is visibly apparent.

it's segregation moved to the private sector, the end.

ok, duh. it looks like they're rejecting it, not passing it and i need to read more carefully. my bad. but either way it is a fucking close call, when it should be a no-brainer. AND most of the people who voted no probably only did so because somewhere along the line the proposition also stripped away priviledges currently enjoyed by unmarried straight couples. so it's less about gay rights than it is about cohabitation rights. sigh.

As you can all see my wife feels very strongly on this issue. I am against '04 ban, as well as this new one; we should not be legislating people's private lives. What really surprised me about the situation, however, was that enough AZ folks actually read the fine print on this one. Way to go, straight team.
In AZ, so many of our propositions go to hell based solely on redundancy. For instance, a few years back AZ had two separate ballot initiatives with similar writing concerning the funding of health and welfare programs that was not only redundant, but economically batshit. If one would have passed, it would have been enough, but the f-ing governor at the time backed all the measures. It's these kinds of voting situations that help bankrupt the states, while the federal government continues to hemmorrage money for the sake of the private sector.
I implore you future lawmakers/defenders out there to stay as far from the edges of fundamentalism and blind generousity as possible and help us all fix this ridiculous government of ours before things really hit the shitter.

Do you see the irony in the order of your last two posts? Good thinking Wisconsin... allowing same-sex couples to get married would certainly undermine the sanctity of marriage for hetero couples like Brittney and K-Fed...

I'd like to be optimistic about this, but I don't think Democrats taking control of Congress is going to help in the long run. We may get two years of opposition Congress, which, even if they get nothing accomplished, perhaps they can stop Bush from getting absolutely everything he wants for awhile.

Problem is, even if they can stifle the fundamentalist agenda for a couple years, all that means is that in 08 the GOP will be poised to take Congress and the Presidency back. All they have to do is say look, Democrats complained about how we ran things, and then when they got into Congress, they didn't accomplish a thing. They don't even need a platform. Just find a couple more things for us to fear (right now, we've got terrorists, immigrants, and homosexuals), and they've got a mortal lock on a perpetually gullible electorate. Combine that with this country's general slide toward conservatism...

BAM! Herpes.

Regardless of the details, AZ still kicked some serious ass.

What the Dems tried to emphasize in VA (and why I think the vote there was as close as it was) is that these amendments may also take away the right of straight couples in civil unions. You didn't hear many people talk about the part of the amendment where an unmarried straight couple that has been in a committed relationship for the last two decades may, in some states, lose their rights because they don't need a meaningless piece of paper to validate their relationship.

The same thing was emphasized here in AZ too. Basically, the prop would've denied certain benefits to non-married non-traditional families, including elderly couples who don't want to get married. Despite the obvious pandering to the elderly population here, I'm still proud of us for not amending our constitution to ban something that isn't hurting anyone.

"they don't need a meaningless piece of paper to validate their relationship."

Way to sell the need for gay marriage, ya goober.

Wow . . . I don't think anyone's used the word "goober" on here before. Awesome!

Anything for you, Ismael.

I was pretty upset about the WI amendment. I was so hopeful on election day, thinking that the good people of WI would show the rest of the country the meaning of fairness. When we didn't win, I felt like I lost faith in the general population. It sucks to realize that 60% of the people you meet out there are homophobic fundamentalists assholes. For the first time ever, I'm considering moving to Canada.