Tag: politics

Posted on

We’re Number 12! We’re Number 12!

Okay, maybe that’s a bit premature, but just a few hours ago, the Minnesota House of Representatives voted 75-59 to pass a bill legalizing gay marriage. If it gets through the Senate and is signed by Governor Dayton, we’d be the 12th state in the U.S. to do so. (Kinda weird to think that in November, we were voting about a provision to the state constitution defining marriage as “man and woman.”) I’ve said before that I don’t like talking about politics here, but I did a little research and found a few things that may or may not be enlightening:

1) The voting was almost split down party lines, Democrats for and Republicans against. Almost. As it turned out, two Democrats and four Republicans crossed the proverbial carpet. Dems had the House majority, so the legislation was already likely to pass, but the fact that the vote wasn’t decided exclusively according to party lines is at least mildly refreshing.

2) They passed an amendment to add “civil” to “marriage” in the bill, which I think is a great decision. If a particular church or organization chooses not to marry a couple, they can’t be punished for refusing to do so. Some people may complain that “civil” is irrelevant because marriage is a religious institution, but while I understand their point, there’s a problem they likely don’t know, haven’t considered or blatantly ignore.

3) There are 1,138 federal laws and 515 state laws in Minnesota granting specific rights to married couples that are unavailable to gay couples. 1,653 laws. Think about how big that number is. If you assigned each law to a day on a calendar, that calendar would be four years and four months long and none of them can apply to gay couples in Minnesota because they can’t get married.

So that’s the scoop of the hour. House Representatives made their votes for various reasons, not all of which were their political affiliation. They chose to legalize civil gay marriage, so regardless of your beliefs about them being loved or damned in the eyes of God, this decision was more about granting gay couples the same rights in the eyes of the law. Welcome to being Number 12, kids.

Posted on

When did Batman first get elected?

I have no idea who originally wrote this as their Facebook status (a friend of mine “borrowed” it, but presumably, he won’t be giving it back) and I really don’t think it’s all that clever:

“Dark Knight (2008)
Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Coincidence? I think not.”

My response? “If that’s the case, the Republicans could have saved themselves a lot of time and money for this election, given that people already knew about Dark Knight Rises in 2012 last year.”

Posted on

I’m voting against you! Ptbpptbptpbt!!!

I took part in the political process earlier this morning, did my civic duty and voted. Yay me!

I went there with both my parents and thankfully, all of the discussion (at varying volumes) about our voting choices was done last night, so there were no arguments in the car ride there nor home again. However, Dad told us a brief story afterward that he considered amusing and I thought may have been seriously offensive.

In Minnesota, there are two new Constitutional amendments on the ballot: forbidding gay marriage and requiring a legal form of ID to vote. Obviously, we don’t need an ID yet, so since we were already registered, the three of us walked up to a desk, signed in, then went over to the table to get our ballots. When Dad got there, he put his driver’s license down on the table in front of the worker and she threw it back at him. Like I said, he thought it was pretty funny.

As for myself, well, I think I can understand why she would have such a bad reaction. If she felt really strongly about not wanting the voter ID amendment to pass, showing your driver’s license would be like bluntly stating to her face, “I’m voting against your strong beliefs.” (Meanwhile, she has to sit there and not say anything since that’s her civic duty.)

And it’s not just telling her how he’s voting. He’s making a physical gesture when doing so: putting his ID on the table in front of her. In my mind, that could be like saying, “I’m voting against your strong beliefs”, then giving her the finger. If that was how she looked at it, I’m impressed that she restrained herself enough to only throw his driver’s license back at him.

Posted on

Time for November Madness!

In preparations for the election tomorrow, I got a copy of a sample ballot and began filling in the bubbles for my candidates of choice. Or at least the candidates that I think won’t suck too bad. And as I did more research and kept filling in the bubbles, it suddenly felt like I was making college basketball picks for March Madness. Who will be going to the next round by being elected? Who will be curled up in a ball, crying on the floor in anguish after losing?

Then there’s the championship game, the presidential election, the one that matters most and will have the largest impact on the U.S. for the next four years. Unfortunately, there’s a distinct possibility that there won’t be a final score at the end of the night, no one will be celebrating and the winner could be determined inside of the wrong kind of court.

Posted on

Vote NO to prevent gay moonshine!

I tend to avoid writing about politics on here, primarily because it makes me feel all icky, and it always gets worse toward the end of October/beginning of November. Consider the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy:

Ohio and Florida are considered swing states for this election. The presidential candidate who wins their electoral votes is likely to get elected. Then Hurricane Sandy hammered the East Coast at the beginning of the week. President Barack Obama could have kept campaigning, but he took a detour and did his presidential duty, focusing his attention on areas that will likely need governmental assistance to recover.

Chris Christie, a staunch Republican who gave a speech at the Republican National Convention, is the governor of New Jersey, one of the states that got hammered. People are labeling Christie as a traitor because he wants to help the citizens of his state: he’s accepting aid from the Democratic President Obama.

In other words, these two guys (who happen to be politicians) are showing concern for victims of a major natural disaster and some people are mad at them because of it. Like I said, it makes me feel icky.

But the reason I started writing this is because of something that’s going to be on my ballot in just a few days. There are two major amendments for Minnesota’s Constitution being proposed and I don’t like either of them, but the one I find more upsetting is the “Recognition of Marriage” amendment.

Here’s the specific wording that will be on the ballot: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

My first objection is that the Constitution should not be used to take away people’s rights. Period. It’s meant to protect us from the government, from abuses of power, and generally from ourselves. The only amendment of the U.S. Constitution that took away its citizens’ rights was the 18th, the prohibition of alcohol, and I’m sure it would have worked perfectly if not for all that “people making moonshine and the underground alcohol trade” stuff.

Thus, less than 15 years later, the 21st Amendment was enacted, repealing the 18th Amendment. The only amendment to remove power from people—the power to get liquored up, vomit on your neighbor’s front porch and pass out—was eliminated. But now some people want to do it here in Minnesota. They want to take away people’s rights. They want to grab our Constitution, wipe their asses with it, then tell us that the giant smear that’s been added is an improvement.

Aside from how the Constitution shouldn’t remove people’s rights, my second objection is that proponents of the Amendment never mention one important thing: gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. Can’t do it. If a gay couple wants to get married, they have to leave the state.

Instead of mentioning its illegality, they talk about how if the Amendment doesn’t pass, teachers will tell their students about gay marriage, make them choose to be gay and cause the universe to erupt in a gigantic ball of fire. Okay, maybe not the last one, but if that’s their rationale, if the proponents of the amendment are right about how teachers will say this illegal activity is okay, then it’ll only be a matter of time before chemistry teachers tell students how to make meth in their bathtubs.

So that’s a really quick summary of my opposition to the amendment: the Constitution shouldn’t be used to take away people’s rights and it’s unnecessary because it’s preventing something that already can’t be done. You might agree with me, you might not, but please remember when you vote on November 6th that any amendments to the Constitution should be written in ink, not bullshit.