I iz a citizen!

[samantilles]

I voted... I think I actually took more time making my decision about the referendum questions than I did for the people I was electing to office. Thanks toaurora_novarum , sg_betty , and cleothemuse for their input on the Maryland Slots question!!  It was really the only question I didn't quite have an opinion for as of last night!  Anyways, The lines were about two hours long,

Comments

[aurora_novarum]

Actually, they're giving away beverages for free as a general promotion, since Washington Attorney General pointed out you can't give "rewards" for voting i.e. a cup of coffee. It's a felony in many states and against federal election laws too.

So Starbucks and Krispy Kreme and Ben&Jerry's are just offering free stuff today for anyone. AP Article

Voting is its own reward, anyway. Go you!

[samantilles]

that I didn't know! I knew they asked if people voted, but that might just be the manager trying to be a bit cheap! Its a real shame they closed down the B&J next to my house *sigh*

But I do relish my right and privilege to vote... after all, I can't complain about the administration if I don't participate in it!

[sg_betty]

While voting absentee from Canada is fast and easy, I get no treats... Sigh.
California always has a mind boggling number of propositions and measures. A lot of them are budgetary, and really not what I think the population should be deciding, but that's California for you... The most shocking one (there's always at least one shocking one) was a proposition to actually ammend the state constitution to take away the rights of gays to get married. It is the first time that it has been proposed that a constitution be ammended for the purpose of removing rights from a segment of the population. There's a scary road to travel down! Even if I agreed with the root goal, which I don't, how is is not possible that the people proposing this don't see the scaryness of setting such a precedent? *Sigh*

[samantilles]

That is a scary road to travel down!! Thats what happens though when the State Supreme court includes it though... I may not be part of the alternative lifestyle community (or whatever politically correct terminology the gay/lesbian/bi/transsexual/transgendered community is) but I do have friends in it, and my opinion on their right to marriage should not be a factor in their happiness. Setting that kind of precedent is very dangerous, especially in California. On a national scale that would specifically endanger the rights of gay couples not only to enter into marriage, but civil unions and rights like survivability, insurance, and adoption in other states because of that precedent.

*sends virtual brownie because betty doesn't get coffee*

[sg_betty]

Ah, yum! Virtual treats! So much better for my waistline than the real ones... ; )
Re: removing rights by ammendment.
Not only that, but once the precedent is set, it could be any group that has their rights removed for any reason that is popular at the time. It wouldn't necessarily have to apply to unions/marriages. The precedent that it is permissable to remove a legal right by virtue of the popular vote is simply terrifying.