Jesse Connolly, the campaign manager of our No on 1 campaign, will be on The Rachel Maddow show tonight...just in case anyone is interested.

I voted today! Woot!

Nexa

I didn't realize the polling was so close on Question 1. [:eek:]

Other Maine political musings....

I stopped for coffee this morning at this little corner deli. Besides making a dang good cup of coffee, this deli has a nice wine selection as well wine tastings every couple months. This is usually where I buy my wine. I've been to one of their tastings. I made the mistake of asking the owner/counter guy when the next was going to be.

Apparently until the guy chills-out or the law changes there won't be any further wine tastings. Apparently we let a law pass that forbids children from being able to view wine tastings. This particular little shop is on the corner and all windows. Whether or not they could get in trouble from a kid walking by, looking in the window and seeing people drinking wine inside is questionable. None the less the owner/operator was on a rant.

Apparently the law was part of a bigger piece of legislation to allow grocery stores and other retail places to give out free samples of wine or booze. Not only is this just stupid law-making it seems rather arbitrary. Certainly children are not banned from using their eyeballs in other public places where liquor is being consumed. I'm also bugged that this was the first I'd heard of it. The law actually went into effect last month.


STORY







Edited, Oct 21st 2009 9:18pm by Elinda

I thought that was Minnesota.

You guys were better while you were still part of MA. >_>

Maine politics? *yawn*

We just had a senator on trial for stabbing his ho in the face with a wine glass and he got off with a misdemeanor.

Oh yeah? Well the President of France just got his 23 year old son (with 2 years of law studies under his belt) to take over the management of the biggest business district in Europe.

And our Culture Minister wrote a book explaining the he practised sex tourism in Thailand and that he enjoyed spending money to have sex with "boys".

Obviously, he's kept his job.


Edited, Oct 22nd 2009 10:06am by RedPhoenixxx

Only because we don't have an Italian on this board.

And our Culture Minister wrote a book explaining the he practised sex tourism in Thailand and that he enjoyed spending money to have sex with "boys".

Obviously, he's kept his job.

I went through however long it's been since this broke thinking it was Francois Mitterrand, then realizing he was surely dead, then forgetting that he was dead and thinking how out of character it seemed.

I still can't believe how backwards a significant number of people in the U.S. are. I'm just glad I live in Minnesota, which is really part of Canada, so I don't have to deal with these retards constantly :)

I heard Jesus voted 1,000,000 times yes on question 1 :(

I'm a fool to believe that any real change is possible but it still made me tear up when the voters cast their ballot to deprive same sex couples of the right to marriage.

Isn't the California version at least an amendment to the Calfornia State Constitution? And wouldn't that mean that the judges would have no way of overturning it since it was voted into being within the bounds of the rules set in place by said constitution?

Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

I'm thinking there need to be a game plan change to get social parity passed.

You guys really just need to wait for all the old folk to die off.

You know who you quoted right? Is there a more apathetic person on this forum?

According to my calculations, based on voting distributions etc. in 2013, assuming similar levels of voter participation, enough will have died/moved to Florida and enough younger voters will have reached voting age for this to overturn through the natural democratic process.

But my numbers are moderately inexact.

Did a bit of a double take there, as I recall some unnatural business awhile back. Have you changed your position on this one?

On what grounds, out of curiosity? It may just be the fact that it's almost bedtime, but wouldn't the only thing you could overturn it on be if it violated the federal constitution, which would make all other cases basically irrelevent if it was found to do so?

Assuming they didn't pass a national amendment.

I'm embarrassed to say that neither do I.

It's all very Wild West - if the voters vote it in, then there's no need for any silly legislative review. It's the will of the peoples!

I was going to think of someone, but then I realized I didn't care.

No. You're just too absorbed in your fantasy world to realize that it wouldn't set that much of a precedent at all.

Yes, it would. Since there is no mention of marriage in the US Constitution at all, the Justice(s) in question would have to determine two things in order to rule in favor of such a constitutional challenge:


1. That the status of marriage at issue is a "right or privilege" being denied to a citizen or person within the US.

and

2. That said right or privilege must be afforded to any/all citizens or persons, with no conditions having to be met.


Both are problematic. The first because it requires that the court assume that the benefits of marriage granted by the state are a "right or privilege", not just the natural ability of two people to simply decide to be married. I've pointed out in past discussions of gay marriage that these are two completely different things. You have a right to own a car, but this does not mean that someone else must provide you with one. More importantly, someone failing to provide you with one is not the same as "denying your right" to own a car. To make this ruling the court would have to effectively state that those are the same thing, which turns quite a bit of judicial history on its head.


The second flows from the first. If this is a right/privilege which all citizens/persons have, then it can't be denied for any reason at all (barring due process of course). Which leads us pretty directly to exactly the sort of slippery slope aspects of this issue which some conservatives have pointed to, and which all those on the pro-gay marriage side of the issue insist aren't going to happen.

There is no argument for gay marriage at the Constitutional level which does not also work for polygamy, or incest, or child-bride situations. By changing the issue from one in which a state may choose to recognize a specific coupling/marriage with benefits based on whatever criteria they choose to one in which no state may deny any couple/marriage the same benefits, you eliminate any legal ability to limit who may marry. Not just who may marry, but what marriages the state must officially recognize and reward with the same benefits it provides to all other marriages.


Now, Congress could write an amendment to the Constitution addressing marriage, and that might work. But a ruling on marriage based on the constitution as it's written right now, would require opening up the issue far more broadly than what is at issue here. I honestly suspect that this is part of the objective here (create a condition so undesirable that it'll force states to eliminate all benefits for marriage, ending the debate, but also hurting marriage rates among heterosexual couples), but that's just my own tin foil hat speaking...

I'd say it is because most citizens are indifferent and the only people that vote are the fringe groups. It's the gays vs hardcore christians.

Guess which there are more of.