Florida also approved a measure to ban SSM. Arkansas approved initiative 1, which prohibits unmarried couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents, effectively ending same-sex adoption. In unrelated news, orphans in Arkansas become victims of politics.
California prop 4 failed to pass, and would have required parental notification for a minor seeking an abortion (with provisions for the health and safety of the mother). South Dakota rejected a ban on all abortions except health/safety and rape/incest. As I understand it, SD rejected a ban in 2006 that did not contain those provisions, and the margins were very similar. Interesting data there. Colorodo overwhelmingly rejected a measure to define a person as existing from the moment of conception. I somewhat suspect that, as a nation, we are reaching something resembling a compromise on this issue.
Nebraska passed a measure to end affirmative action, while a similar measure in Colorodo is hanging in limbo, too close to call.
Michigan approved a measure that allows for embryonic stem cell research with the provisions that they be used no more than 14 days after cell division begins, and that the embryo had been created for fertility purposes.
Michigan also approved a proposition that allows patients who have registered to consume marijuana for medicinal purposes. The measure would also, interestingly enough, allow those prosecuted for marijuana-related crimes to cite medical use in defense. Massachusetts approved Question 2, which would make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana punishable by a civil fine (not sure exactly what that means) of $100. Minors caught would be required to complete a drug education program and perform community service, or pay a steeper penalty. Potheads rejoice.
Washington passed initiative 1000 to allow doctors to prescribe lethal medication at the (multiple, with waiting periods) request of a terminally ill patient. Terminally ill in this case means estimated at having six months or less to live.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ugh, Florida banned SSM too?
Yay for the Canadian tourism industry, but otherwise, ugh.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Massachusetts approved Question 2, which would make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana punishable by a civil fine (not sure exactly what that means) of $100."
It means having an ounce of pot is approximately a parking ticket.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
That's what I thought, but wasn't certain how technical a term it was. Thanks.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm happy for both the Massachusetts decision on pot (I also hope that there are horrible penalties for driving while under the influence.) and a bit torn about the California one about prostitution. While I think that prostitution should be illegal for the buyers and not the sellers, it seems that making prostitution legal would make it much, much harder to root out and prosecute sex traffickers. So I guess I'm happy about that as well.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The Arizona and California SSM bans didn't pass by overwhelming margins. 44% and 48% of people in those two states respectively voted against the bans. 12 years ago, the Defense of Marriage Act passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate; I think similar state votes 12 years ago would have passed by wider margins than they did today.
I think it's just a matter of time. It may take a long time, but I do think it's inevitable.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
We've got to hang our hope on Obama and the dems. They have complete control of the federal government. Now is the time for them to prove they're the friends of equal rights and aren't simply banging their gums together to make the right noise.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I wonder if he'll try to get the federal DoMA repealed.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
twinky: That's what I'm hoping. That'd go a very long way, actually...
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I believe that he has stated in the past the he is in favor of repealing DoMA and "don't ask don't tell." That was back in '04 though. I don't know how much of a priority it'll be. I'll try to find some info.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"We've got to hang our hope on Obama"
I thought he was against SSM? Or are you saying he lied about that to appeal to the moderates and he will show his true colors now that he is president?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
lobo: He's says he's against SSM but pro civil union. Basically, he's trying to have it both ways.
Unfortunately, politicians rarely GROW civil rights courage after they're elected. Instead, it frequently shrinks (ie: Bill Clinton)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:and a bit torn about the California one about prostitution.
We had a what now? Was that somewhere else, because I did not see that on my ballot...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KQ: San Francisco's measure K would have decriminalized prostitution. It failed.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ah. Okay, that was a local measure, then, not a state one. Got it.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: lobo: He's says he's against SSM but pro civil union. Basically, he's trying to have it both ways.
I like to think of it more as a compromise. Personally, I think people should be able to call the ties binding their family together anything they like, but in terms of law all such unions should really be civil unions.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Massachusetts overwhelmingly kept the state income tax, and decriminalized marijuana for small amounts, and moderately banned gambling on dog racing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: lobo: He's says he's against SSM but pro civil union. Basically, he's trying to have it both ways.
I like to think of it more as a compromise. Personally, I think people should be able to call the ties binding their family together anything they like, but in terms of law all such unions should really be civil unions.
I would be totally okay with that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm happy for both the Massachusetts decision on pot (I also hope that there are horrible penalties for driving while under the influence.) and a bit torn about the California one about prostitution. While I think that prostitution should be illegal for the buyers and not the sellers, it seems that making prostitution legal would make it much, much harder to root out and prosecute sex traffickers. So I guess I'm happy about that as well.
The penalties for operating under the influence are unchanged. First offense is $500-$5000, up to 2.5 years in prison, or both. The pro side made that clear in the little booklet we got.
MA also voted to keep the income tax, and I believe to effectively end greyhound dog racing in the state (this was the closest question).
EDIT: Or what Paul said.
-Bok
[ November 05, 2008, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
We had a local measure that passed...
quote: With 75 percent of its precincts reporting, Allentown voters supported a referendum -- by 58 percent to 52 percent -- that would change the city charter and give council the power to decide what bid contract processes should be followed, unofficial results showed.
Currently, the city's charter requires a competitive bidding process for all non-professional service contracts worth more than $20,000, with the award going to the lowest responsible bidder. The same procedures apply to city purchases of materials and supplies.
In addition, all contracts and supply purchases between $4,000 and $20,000 require city employees to obtain written or telephone quotes from at least three responsible businesses.
With all the outcry against President Bush and no-bid contracts I am just stunned that this passed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:and a bit torn about the California one about prostitution.
We had a what now? Was that somewhere else, because I did not see that on my ballot...
My reaction exactly.
Also, yippee! 1A and R both passed -- we might get decent public transportation in this state yet!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow - I'm surprised that the Washington question that passed a measure to allow assisted suicide for terminal patients didn't make more press! I hadn't even heard about that one until reading your link above.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm a little surprised too, frankly. I feel like it was overshadowed publicity-wise in Seattle by a transportation measure, which passed (my reaction mirrors rivka's ). There were some really awful radio commercials featuring Martin Sheen though.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
We had a local ballot measure to raise the mill levy on property taxes to pay for a new hospital. Despite the efforts of the hospital interests, it failed by nearly 20%. They can try again, probably with a smaller proposal, in the next election. It's definitely needed. The current hospital has its emergency room on the 4th floor, among other issues.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:and a bit torn about the California one about prostitution.
We had a what now? Was that somewhere else, because I did not see that on my ballot...
My reaction exactly.
Also, yippee! 1A and R both passed -- we might get decent public transportation in this state yet!
What's the timeframe on those, though? We're talking at least a decade, right?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Wow - I'm surprised that the Washington question that passed a measure to allow assisted suicide for terminal patients didn't make more press! I hadn't even heard about that one until reading your link above.
Interesting. Thats an interesting development. One that seems to be (perhaps unfortunately) largely overshadowed by the far more contentious threads on abortion, same-sex marriage, evolution, and so forth.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
JT, for completion, yes. For the first phase of the L.A. project (which I know more details about than the statewide one), I think it's 2-3 years. And every phase will help.
But really, I don't see any way to overhaul our current transportation issues in substantially less than 10 years. Not without shutting down traffic and costing a heck of lot more than these projects.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
No, I suppose you're right. I just don't know whether I'll be here in 10 years. I can't decide if I should waste any excitement on something I may never use.
It is badly needed, though.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I agree. And I plan to live here more than 10 years, so... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I can't decide if I should waste any excitement on something I may never use.
Less traffic in L.A. Surely this is something everyone in any state can get behind?
Anyway, stage one you might be here long enough to see, neh? And it's near-ish to you, IIRC.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Wait a minute, 58% to 52%?!?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Twinky...Yea I wondered about that as well. No wonder our schools' math scores are so low
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
Don't forget California Proposition 2! This was one for the animal rights activists.
It states that animals must have enough room in their holding cells/containers/cages for the animal to fully extend its limbs and turn around completely. There is a $1,000 for an offense.
It passed. I know I am in probably in the minority on this issue, but in my opinion this will drive up the price of meat (At least meat that comes from California). I guess it could be a good thing however. It should create a few more government jobs in which people will carry measuring tapes around to make sure the cages are big enough.
Since animals even of the same species vary in size I really do not know how they are going to strictly enforce this without bankrupting a lot of the businesses in this industry. Although I am sure some would argue that this is exactly what certain groups HOPE happen which is why they supported Prop 2. (PETA being one)
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: Don't forget California Proposition 2! This was one for the animal rights activists.
It states that animals must have enough room in their holding cells/containers/cages for the animal to fully extend its limbs and turn around completely.
Wonder if this applies to Dog Crates used for transport, etc.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I voted against prop 2, so naturally it passed.
This is just another attempt by the vegans to stop us from eating meat. They're using reasonable sounding means to drive up its price and put farmers out of business.
Just more meddling from people who think they have a right to legislate their morality.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl:
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: Don't forget California Proposition 2! This was one for the animal rights activists.
It states that animals must have enough room in their holding cells/containers/cages for the animal to fully extend its limbs and turn around completely.
Wonder if this applies to Dog Crates used for transport, etc.
It applies to egg-laying chickens, veal calves, and pregnant pigs. No mention of regular beef cows, chicken for meat, or any other animals. I believe that there are already standards for transport of animals used in business but not sure what they are. I don't see this driving up the price of beef or chicken much, since many farmers specialize. I voted for it. It may drive up the price of eggs but I already buy free-range eggs only, so I'm not too worried about that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, and exceptions are made for vets, transport, 4-H programs, county fairs, etc.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: I voted for it. It may drive up the price of eggs but I already buy free-range eggs only, so I'm not too worried about that.
Of course, you're not worried about anyone else, just yourself.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I am worried about other people; I just think that free-range is already a viable option (in fact at Trader Joe's they are about the same price as regular eggs at the grocery store) and people will still have a choice what to buy-- regular with a possible small price increase, out of state, already carried at many discount stores, will be cheaper, or free range, already available for a reasonable price. Everyone has the option already to buy non-California eggs.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So more irrational regulation is fine.
It's ok to put the california farmers out of business.
People already have the opportunity to make an extra stop if they have a trader joes in their neighborhood.
Making people pay a LITTLE extra for eggs trucked in from out of state is fine. (And environmentally sound?)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Wow. I'm not going to continue this. The anger, it makes my teeth hurt.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Next time, try to remember that every law nibbles away at our freedoms. There has to be a DAMN good reason to pass *any* law.
Well, if Freedom is important to you, anyway. It's not to most people.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
So you assume I don't weigh the cost of a law before I vote on it? I do. Just because I weigh things differently than you doesn't mean I don't weigh them. I have a right to make a reasoned decision on how I will vote, just as you do, and I think it's rather rude to be so vicious about people who vote for things you don't like. Not to mention less effective than trying to persuade without attacking. You catch more flies with honey, and all that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You know, Pix, I voted against 2 too. I am convinced it will drive some farms out of business, and mean more of our eggs (especially in SoCal) come from Mexico. I have also seen convincing studies that indicate that a good part of why California has relatively low salmonella rates is because we didn't have some of these requirements.
Nonetheless, your nastiness and despicable treatment of kq makes me suddenly wish I had voted for the measure. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I can't decide if I should waste any excitement on something I may never use.
Less traffic in L.A. Surely this is something everyone in any state can get behind?
Anyway, stage one you might be here long enough to see, neh? And it's near-ish to you, IIRC.
With any luck, I'll be here long enough to see the whole thing get completed. I just can't decide if I can maintain excitement about something that's so far off.
Plus, the way LA's growing, by the time it's complete there'll be plenty of new cars to take up the spaces vacated by this project. Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I can't decide if I should waste any excitement on something I may never use.
Less traffic in L.A. Surely this is something everyone in any state can get behind?
Anyway, stage one you might be here long enough to see, neh? And it's near-ish to you, IIRC.
With any luck, I'll be here long enough to see the whole thing get completed. I just can't decide if I can maintain excitement about something that's so far off.
Plus, the way LA's growing, by the time it's complete there'll be plenty of new cars to take up the spaces vacated by this project.
LA will grow with or without those new spaces, so we're better off with them.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
rivka: The attitude of "Well, the law doesn't inconvenience ME so I'll go ahead and vote for it" provokes hostility in me. The day it DOESN'T make me angry is the day I've lost my way.
This is just like the "*I* would be willing to do X if it means more Y" argument. Just because someone is willing to sacrifice for a cause doesn't mean everyone is or should be. And you shouldn't use the law to force them.
If we plan on holding on to what liberty we have left in this country, the default answer for any law or regulation must be "NO." Just like the default for any jury trial is "NO."
Of course, as I said before, Liberty is a very unpopular concept.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
When you define 'liberty' as 'things Pix thinks without considering any other sides of the issues', then yes, that's true.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Next time, try to remember that every law nibbles away at our freedoms.
Lots of laws protect freedoms. Laws that codify what the police can do for example. Laws that keep others from infringing on my property. Without law, there would be very little freedom. I don't want the government in every corner of my life by any stretch of the imaginiation but a visceral hatred of all things government hardly seems the appropriate solution.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: rivka: The attitude of "Well, the law doesn't inconvenience ME so I'll go ahead and vote for it" provokes hostility in me. The day it DOESN'T make me angry is the day I've lost my way.
1) I'm pretty sure you are reading that intent into what kq said; I don't think it's there. 2) Fine, get angry. But act like you're older than a toddler, and express your anger without striking out. Disagreeing with someone, even if the disagreement makes you angry, does not give you the right to lash out like that. Grow up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: With any luck, I'll be here long enough to see the whole thing get completed. I just can't decide if I can maintain excitement about something that's so far off.
Plus, the way LA's growing, by the time it's complete there'll be plenty of new cars to take up the spaces vacated by this project.
First of all, Selran's right. But also, if the new systems work well enough, we might actually change the way Californians feel about their cars. It is common for NYers not to own a car; it's very uncommon in L.A. and many other parts of California. Yeah, we're more spread out, but I for one would love to have public transportation as an option.
This is something I've been oh-so-gradually seeing us move towards for the past 20+ years. Ten more is nothing. And as I said, I'm hoping to see a difference in just a few.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). There were some really awful radio commercials featuring Martin Sheen though.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)