Obama wins 349 Electoral votes vs. McCain's 147 Electoral votes.
Obama wins Popular Vote By 63,112,190 vs McCain's 55,867,094 as of 9:51am Pacific Standard Time, giving Obama 52% Vs. McCain 46%.
Four years ago, Bush declared he would expend his political capital because he had earned it and he was given a mandate by the electorate.
Hardly...this is what a mandate looks like.
No vote stealing required!!!
Political Satire is not dead!
Political satire has a long, rich history in this country. The roasting of politicians and other public figures via comedy and exageration is a necessity in a democratic republic such as ours and is guarenteed by the First Amendment. Sadly, this fundamental right has been and continues to be under attack. It is always refreshing when someone can creatively and intelligently express themselves while criticizing those in power--or potentially in power, as this fine American - Hockey Mom does here:
You can also find it here.
You can also find it here.
Why I voted no on Proposition 8
For those of you who do not live in California, or those who do and are
unaware, Proposition 8 is currently on the ballot for the 2008 general
election in November. It is a proposed amendment to the California
constitution that would officially designate marriage as exclusively
for a man and woman. The full text reads as follows:
I am a firm believer and supporter of the United States Constitution and of the California State Constitution. These Constitutions are the fundamental foundation of this country and of the state. While imperfect in creation, they are necessary and vital for a free people. I based my primary opposition to Prop 8 on these two Constitutions.
Proposition 8 would violate the equal protection clauses found in the California State Constitution Section 7 and in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Prop 8 would deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law by denying them the right to marry based solely on their sexual orientation. The right to form relationships, marry and create families with another consenting adult is a fundamental human right. Allowing only a specific type of person, or one approved on the basis of their sexual orientation as seen through the prism of a particular religion, would deny equal protection to these unprotected or unapproved members of the population. Marriage discrimination is not new to California. Similar discrimination was struck down about 60 years ago in the California Supreme Court decision Perez v Sharp which ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional.
I haven't seen any discussion on this, but it seems to me that Proposition 8 would also violate Section 4 of the California State Constitution as well as the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion. People opposed to gay marriage usually base their opposition on religious grounds. According to this view, marriage is between a man and a woman based on God’s word as it appears in the bible and other religious texts. If a law or constitutional amendment were passed to specifically deny anyone other than a heterosexual couple marriage rights based on a religious ideology or text, that law would be unconstitutional because it is respecting or preferring an establishment of religion. It denies those so affected equal protection under the law on religious grounds. It fails to take into consideration the fact that some people are atheists or believers of religions that do not condemn non-heterosexual people, or neither atheists, but rather those who practice no religion. If there were no biblical or other religiously motivated proscriptions against homosexual marriage, then there would be no basis for such discrimination other than personal opinion, which fails to form a firm basis for a constitutional amendment or constitutionally sound law.
Prop 8 also violates the spirit of Section 1 of the California State Constitution, which states:
There may be nothing more private than the private, intimate relationships we form, whether they be with family or a mate. The right and opportunity to form the bond of marriage facilitates the possession and protection of private property as well as the safety, happiness and privacy of the relationship. These matters should not be intruded upon by either the government or by private citizens' personal beliefs.
When challenged, Prop 8 supporters have failed to produce factual evidence on exactly how gay marriage will threaten the 'institution of heterosexual marriage'. With the divorce rate averaging 50%, it appears that heterosexuals are attacking the institution quite well on their own. In reality, allowing gay people to marry poses no actual or potential threat to any heterosexual marriage, especially when you consider that the parties to these marriages will never meet or otherwise affects each others lives. Governments allow individuals to marry because they recognize that marriage creates stability within society.
On a visceral level, I disagree with Proposition 8 and with people who feel they can dictate another adults life based on their own personal opinion. I disagree with people who feel they have the only answer or know the only way to live a valuable, productive, acceptable life. I certainly do not have the answer and make no claims to have it and I am not willing to deny another human being the ability or opportunity to find those answers in their own way.
Proposition 8 is not something that should be put into the California Constitution. It goes against the idea of a Constitution, which should always be used to protect the rights of the people rather than negate those rights or deny future rights or offer those rights to only a select group. Quite simply the hatred of homosexuals seems to be the last semi-acceptable public prejudice. It should not remain so.
unaware, Proposition 8 is currently on the ballot for the 2008 general
election in November. It is a proposed amendment to the California
constitution that would officially designate marriage as exclusively
for a man and woman. The full text reads as follows:
PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
I am a firm believer and supporter of the United States Constitution and of the California State Constitution. These Constitutions are the fundamental foundation of this country and of the state. While imperfect in creation, they are necessary and vital for a free people. I based my primary opposition to Prop 8 on these two Constitutions.
Proposition 8 would violate the equal protection clauses found in the California State Constitution Section 7 and in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Prop 8 would deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law by denying them the right to marry based solely on their sexual orientation. The right to form relationships, marry and create families with another consenting adult is a fundamental human right. Allowing only a specific type of person, or one approved on the basis of their sexual orientation as seen through the prism of a particular religion, would deny equal protection to these unprotected or unapproved members of the population. Marriage discrimination is not new to California. Similar discrimination was struck down about 60 years ago in the California Supreme Court decision Perez v Sharp which ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional.
I haven't seen any discussion on this, but it seems to me that Proposition 8 would also violate Section 4 of the California State Constitution as well as the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion. People opposed to gay marriage usually base their opposition on religious grounds. According to this view, marriage is between a man and a woman based on God’s word as it appears in the bible and other religious texts. If a law or constitutional amendment were passed to specifically deny anyone other than a heterosexual couple marriage rights based on a religious ideology or text, that law would be unconstitutional because it is respecting or preferring an establishment of religion. It denies those so affected equal protection under the law on religious grounds. It fails to take into consideration the fact that some people are atheists or believers of religions that do not condemn non-heterosexual people, or neither atheists, but rather those who practice no religion. If there were no biblical or other religiously motivated proscriptions against homosexual marriage, then there would be no basis for such discrimination other than personal opinion, which fails to form a firm basis for a constitutional amendment or constitutionally sound law.
Prop 8 also violates the spirit of Section 1 of the California State Constitution, which states:
All people are by nature free and independent and have
Inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
Liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
There may be nothing more private than the private, intimate relationships we form, whether they be with family or a mate. The right and opportunity to form the bond of marriage facilitates the possession and protection of private property as well as the safety, happiness and privacy of the relationship. These matters should not be intruded upon by either the government or by private citizens' personal beliefs.
When challenged, Prop 8 supporters have failed to produce factual evidence on exactly how gay marriage will threaten the 'institution of heterosexual marriage'. With the divorce rate averaging 50%, it appears that heterosexuals are attacking the institution quite well on their own. In reality, allowing gay people to marry poses no actual or potential threat to any heterosexual marriage, especially when you consider that the parties to these marriages will never meet or otherwise affects each others lives. Governments allow individuals to marry because they recognize that marriage creates stability within society.
On a visceral level, I disagree with Proposition 8 and with people who feel they can dictate another adults life based on their own personal opinion. I disagree with people who feel they have the only answer or know the only way to live a valuable, productive, acceptable life. I certainly do not have the answer and make no claims to have it and I am not willing to deny another human being the ability or opportunity to find those answers in their own way.
Proposition 8 is not something that should be put into the California Constitution. It goes against the idea of a Constitution, which should always be used to protect the rights of the people rather than negate those rights or deny future rights or offer those rights to only a select group. Quite simply the hatred of homosexuals seems to be the last semi-acceptable public prejudice. It should not remain so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
