Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Result!

Democrats win big in 05

Both of our candidates for governor won last night, and won decisively. President Bush had staked his credibility on Kilgore pulling out a win. The President has no credibility, so he really didn’t lose much when Kaine (D) whomped Kilgore (R ). Corzine (D) similarly clobbered Forrester (R ).

It looks like California (my home state) defeated every single proposition, including all 4 that Ah-nold had tied his future to. Los Angeles County (my home county) is what finally “flipped” 75, the union dues one. Ah-nold is toast and will not be reelected.

Bloomberg won in NYC, but that is no surprise. NYC is a city where Democrats are Democrats and Republicans are Democrats.

Unfortunately, it looks like the Reform Ohio Amendments were all defeated. And it looks like Prop 2 passed here in Texas. I can’t be quite clear from the wording, but it looks as though all marriages in Texas are now semi-illegal. That’s OK for me though, if I had to do it all again, I’d still marry my wife.

Maine actually defeated their right-wing backed no-gays getting married amendment. What kind of water are they drinking up there? Can we get some?

We didn’t win them all, but I think that Democrats clearly have the Big Mo’ heading into 2006.
-Synthesis

1 Comments:

At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is HJR 6, the basis for Prop 2.

H.J.R. No. 6


A JOINT RESOLUTION

proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or
similar to marriage."

They went a little too far, I think. No government in Texas is allowed to recognize any legal status as marriage which is marriage, for one. For another, it cannot _recognize_ any such status. If they had said only create, then the existing law would continue. But now Texas is not allowed to recognize any union which is identical to marriage.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home