FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sarah on November 03, 2009, 08:17:48 AM
-
Question 1: "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"
Question 2: “Do you want to cut the rate of the municipal excise tax by an average of 55% on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly fuel-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax?”
Question 3: “Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect?”
Question 4: “Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes?”
Question 5: “Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution?”
Question 6: “Do you favor a $71,250,000 bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, airports, public transit facilities, ferry and port facilities, including port and harbor structures, as well as funds for the LifeFlight Foundation that will make the State eligible for over $148,000,000 in federal and other matching funds?”
Question 7: “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to increase the amount of time that local officials have to certify the signatures on direct initiative petitions?”
Take that, New Jersey.
-
County Ballot Issue 1A:
Open Space Countywide 0.25% Sales and Use Tax Extension and $50M Bond Authorization Issue
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT BE INCREASED BY UP TO $50,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $140,000,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR TAX RATE, BY THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, AND BE ISSUED, DATED AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH OTHER TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL THE COUNTY'S EXISTING 0.25% OPEN SPACE SALES AND USE TAX CURRENTLY SET TO EXPIRE IN 2019 BE EXTENDED FOR FIFTEEN YEARS, TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2034, AT THE RATE OF 0.25% FOR THE PURPOSES OF OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH OPEN SPACE AND IMPROVEMENTS; SHALL SUCH BONDS BE REPAID FROM THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH EXTENDED TAX AND, TO THE EXTENT PROCEEDS FROM SUCH EXTENDED TAX ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE REPAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, FROM OTHER COUNTY OPEN SPACE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES, THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS; SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH EXTENDED TAX, OTHER COUNTY OPEN SPACE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES, AND MONEYS FROM THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND, THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS TO THE OPEN SPACE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE ON SUCH BONDS AND TO OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE COVENANTS OF THE RESOLUTION OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING SUCH BONDS; AND SHALL THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX AND SUCH BONDS, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2009-100?
YES
NO
-
Question 1 of the Maine ballot is confusingly worded?
Do I want to reject the new law that lets same sex couples marry? No. But that no means I support letting them marry. So no means yes?
Do I want to allow individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages? Sure. But that's not what the question asks - this statement is just a part of the description of the law. AND, there are people who would not want them to be able to refuse and also support same sex marriage. AND there are people who do want to reject the law but would favor allowing these people to refuse.
Man that is badly written.
-
That Colorado question -- whoa, my head hurts.
-
Question 1 of the Maine ballot is confusingly worded?
Do I want to reject the new law that lets same sex couples marry? No. But that no means I support letting them marry. So no means yes?
Do I want to allow individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages? Sure. But that's not what the question asks - this statement is just a part of the description of the law. AND, there are people who would not want them to be able to refuse and also support same sex marriage. AND there are people who do want to reject the law but would favor allowing these people to refuse.
Man that is badly written.
Yeah, that's bad. What's wrong with: "A law has recently been passed which allows same sex couples marry, but allows individuals to refuse to perform those marriages. Should not this law not be repealed?"
I may need to work on the last part.
The correct answer to the Boulder County question is: That's the kind of shit we elect you chuckleheads to figure out.
-
Oh, I know. My sister and I had quite a session about it. Not least because a flyer from a local politician misrepresented the question in such a way that someone voting for same-sex marriage would think "yes" was the option to choose.
-
Oh, I know. My sister and I had quite a session about it. Not least because a flyer from a local politician misrepresented the question in such a way that someone voting for same-sex marriage would think "yes" was the option to choose.
Who is responsible for generating the question(s)? I had exactly the same reaction as Buffcoat when I read it. I'm from north of the 49th parallel...state politics are a complete mystery to me. So are provincial politics for that matter.
-
How about: "If you don't not want same-sex couples to not get married, don't not vote no on item one. And also if clergy don't not want to not conduct the marriage ceremonies. Not! Vote yes or not yes."
-
It's what is being called a "citizen veto," so I believe the people looking to overthrow the law are responsible for the wording. All they needed was their thirty-seven signatures.
-
How about: "If you don't not want same-sex couples to not get married, don't not vote no on item one. And also if clergy don't not want to not conduct the marriage ceremonies. Not! Vote yes or not yes."
V. nice, Jasong.
-
It looks like the answer to Question 1 was yes.
Another victory for discrimination. It's a damn shame.
-
Yeah, it makes me sad.
-
Really, really disheartening.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/FDFx2.jpg)
Hard to believe that this brings such joy to some.
-
Fuck those guys in the head, in my opinion.
-
I wonder what that gay man in the jean jacket is doing there? He looks ambivalent, in any case.
-
Maine had 15% higher turnout than usual. That always depresses me so much about when gay marriage is on a ballot. People can't get motivated to vote for real long-term issues like education, taxes that will have a real, direct impact on their state-- but gay marriage -- always gets the polls humming. Disgraceful.
-
Maine had 15% higher turnout than usual. That always depresses me so much about when gay marriage is on a ballot. People can't get motivated to vote for real long-term issues like education, taxes that will have a real, direct impact on their state-- but gay marriage -- always gets the polls humming. Disgraceful.
Well said, gravy boat!
-
Uhg. That photo.
Time to break out my "Embarrassed American" t-shirt again.
-
Why would the people pro-gay marriage allow for the question to be so intentionally confusingly worded?
-
I wonder what that gay man in the jean jacket is doing there? He looks ambivalent, in any case.
That's his denim suit.
-
Lost souls. I pity them.
Look, I understand voting against all sorts of things based on how you were brought up, where you are in life, whatever. But to get out and actively work on something that's solely done to hurt or hold back other members of the tribe? I don't get that. I don't get what that old lady has to pray about, either.
Anytime somebody's all-out against something that has anything to do with sex, their opposition is rooted in the same place. They ought to have to wear a sign to that effect.
-
I don't get what that old lady has to pray about, either.
The only time I ever get on my knees for anything is when my cat knocks her stupid fake mouse under the sofa.
-
I take some comfort in the fact that Maine is an aging state. I know plenty of young homophobes (mostly boys prone to homoerotic tomfoolery, which I have often pointed out, to their discomfort [I noticed a great deal of that kind of thing in the new FX sitcom The League, so it's not a monopoly of undereducated blue-collar types--which is both good and bad to know]), but I'd bet a tidy sum that it was the oldsters who came out in force to vote "yes" on this. They'll die off soon enough or at least grow too infirm/exhausted to bother to vote.
-
This one just needs to be Wilberforced.
Also, having elections and not lawsuits is the right long-term strategy.
-
What bothers me is when people argue that gay marriage would somehow destroy the sanctity of marriage. What hypocrisy! In reality, the sanctity of marriage has already been damaged irreparably. What's the U.S. divorce rate? At least 50%, right? In the cradle of so-called "traditional values" (the Bible Belt), their divorce rates are actually higher than the national average. Where's the outrage over divorce? I just don't understand the sanctimony of the anti-gay marriage crowd. What happened to the idea of letting others live as they so choose? That this kind of bigotry still exists today is utterly disheartening.
Just my opinion.
-
What bothers me is when people argue that gay marriage would somehow destroy the sanctity of marriage. What hypocrisy! In reality, the sanctity of marriage has already been damaged irreparably. What's the U.S. divorce rate? At least 50%, right? In the cradle of so-called "traditional values" (the Bible Belt), their divorce rates are actually higher than the national average. Where's the outrage over divorce? I just don't understand the sanctimony of the anti-gay marriage crowd. What happened to the idea of letting others live as they so choose? That this kind of bigotry still exists today is utterly disheartening.
Just my opinion.
Not just YOUR opinion.
-
but I'd bet a tidy sum that it was the oldsters who came out in force to vote "yes" on this. They'll die off soon enough or at least grow too infirm/exhausted to bother to vote.
I hope so. Something tells me it's not that easy, but I'm sure a lot of people said that in the 50's as well. But, I hope so.
-
What bothers me is when people argue that gay marriage would somehow destroy the sanctity of marriage. What hypocrisy! In reality, the sanctity of marriage has already been damaged irreparably. What's the U.S. divorce rate? At least 50%, right? In the cradle of so-called "traditional values" (the Bible Belt), their divorce rates are actually higher than the national average. Where's the outrage over divorce? I just don't understand the sanctimony of the anti-gay marriage crowd. What happened to the idea of letting others live as they so choose? That this kind of bigotry still exists today is utterly disheartening.
I don't think it's hypocrisy as much as insecurity. I'm pretty sure what's behind a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is panic. The people it horrifies see the institution of marriage crumbling, don't know what to do to stop it, and latch onto gay marriage as a scapegoat. They can then focus all their rage and confusion on this single enemy instead of facing up to the far more complicated problems behind the collapse of the sacrament they (supposedly) cherish so much (I wonder how many of them have gone through a divorce).
I hope so. Something tells me it's not that easy, but I'm sure a lot of people said that in the 50's as well. But, I hope so.
It's never easy, but look how much has changed since the fifties. Hell, since the seventies/eighties.
-
Yes, those of us who remember the 70s (well, some of em anyway) and the 80s remember when you just didn't talk about such things. No real gay characters on TV until Soap, of all things (unless you count Paul Lynde as a character). Certainly no openly gay people at my high school - of course, some of them _were_ gay, we kind of knew it then but it wasn't an open thing. Now Chapel Hill and Carrboro both have openly gay elected officials.
The progress example I use is this: in the Triangle of NC, an interracial couple still got stared at even in the mid 80s (thankfully, they wouldn't be actually confronted directly by that time). It was a rarity, even in a racially diverse community, to have an interracial couple dating.
By the 2000s, and certainly by now, you'd be really surprised if you didn't see a certain percentage of interracial couples, and you don't generally give it a second thought.
In fact, that dude in Louisiana got driven out of office for taking a position that was probably true of 100% of LA judges in 1950 and at least 60% in 1970.
On this stuff, at least, we are moving rapidly forward as a society.
-
What bothers me is when people argue that gay marriage would somehow destroy the sanctity of marriage. What hypocrisy! In reality, the sanctity of marriage has already been damaged irreparably. What's the U.S. divorce rate? At least 50%, right? In the cradle of so-called "traditional values" (the Bible Belt), their divorce rates are actually higher than the national average. Where's the outrage over divorce? I just don't understand the sanctimony of the anti-gay marriage crowd. What happened to the idea of letting others live as they so choose? That this kind of bigotry still exists today is utterly disheartening.
I don't think it's hypocrisy as much as insecurity. I'm pretty sure what's behind a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is panic. The people it horrifies see the institution of marriage crumbling, don't know what to do to stop it, and latch onto gay marriage as a scapegoat. They can then focus all their rage and confusion on this single enemy instead of facing up to the far more complicated problems behind the collapse of the sacrament they (supposedly) cherish so much (I wonder how many of them have gone through a divorce).
I hope so. Something tells me it's not that easy, but I'm sure a lot of people said that in the 50's as well. But, I hope so.
It's never easy, but look how much has changed since the fifties. Hell, since the seventies/eighties.
What is it about this sacrament that is so cherished anyway? Is the fight to banish same-sex marriage to help preserve the institution of marriage really about how much marriage is cherished? (You used the word "supposedly"; that's what I was thinking too.) Or is it about:
-- bigotry toward gays and lesbians (as a lot of gay activists suppose)
-- anxiety about "change" (which seems a simple-minded answer)
-- the apparent extension of *yet* more made-up rights to *yet* another supposedly oppressed minority... sigh
-- deliberately confusing shell games being played out on ballots
-- economics (I don't know how, but some materialist lefty theorists could invent an explanation here)
-- shadowy imaginary conspiracies (black helicopters, etc. -- you can see I'm at a loss at this point)
The argument that extending marriage to same-sex partners actually strengthens marriage doesn't seem to be convincing anyone, aside from a few homos. I still think it's valid, but I fall into the aforementioned category.
Don't feel ashamed of being from Maine, Sarah, far from it. Defeating that initiative would never have had a ghost of a chance in upwards 30 or 40 other states.
-
I'm not ashamed, Fido. Just weary and disappointed. And puzzled. But then I didn't understand the fuss over Brokeback Mountain, either, if you recall.
-
I was thinking about this, and one of the things I've noticed since gay marriage was legalized in Canada is that gay people are a lot more visible all of a sudden. Extending this right really is a way for society to say "it's cool, people."
-
Just got back from the bar, where my single conversation on the subject of Question 1 did not make me want to crawl into a hole and die: a septuagenarian fellow of my acquaintance made a comment about the results of the election, and not only did he come down on the proper side of the fence but the guy who delivers my fuel oil also expressed his disgust at those foolish enough to think marriage should be the sole province of heterosexuals. And I'd bet the farm--if I had one--that just about anyone else in the bar would have been similarly disposed. I think if the question comes up on next year's ballot, it might go the right way. I suspect the only reason the bastards won this time is that it was an off-year election.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/FDFx2.jpg)
Hard to believe that this brings such joy to some.
The guy in the denim jacket is kinda hot.