triadruid

I'm praying that we avoid the same debacle.

I suspect that it's all about who is mobilizing more voters.

From:

teross50.livejournal.com

that new home for Gaia Probably outta be on our own Island "Large Sigh"

From:

According to the KC Star, only 1,425,764 people voted (or at least, that was the report was with 96% reporting).

out of 5,595,211 people, that's not a lot. I wonder if turnout could have been higher somehow, and whether that would have changed anything?

And only one county voted "no" on that amendment.

Damned heartbreaking.

From:

Well, 5.595 million people in Missouri, but only a percentage of those are eligible to vote, remember. We skew pretty young if I remember right.

In the 2002 election, we ran at 51% voter turnout. That's fairly standard these days for a non-Presidential election, I think. In 2000 we had 61% turnout, so the total eligible population seems to be something like 3.7 million voters. With those figures, the turnout yesterday was right about 40%. For a Primary election, that's high (usually something like 26%?), and the marriage amendment got the most votes by a fair margin.

From:

That's true. Damn statistics, always messing me up.

Either way, I'm surprised that the whole thing pisses me off so. *sighs* Oh, well. If they want to use their constitution to take away rights, I guess that's, um, their right. . .

From:

Yeah, as

featherynscale pointed out last night, when it only takes a simple majority of the Legislature and a simple majority of voters to change your state constitution, you end up with a pretty fucked-up system.

From:

Actually there was a large fracas about the timing of this election; the (Republican) Sec. of State wanted to hold it as part of the November election, as the (Republican) Legislature didn't get him the election paperwork the required number of days before the primary. The (Democratic) Governor and the (Democratic) Attorney General argued, persuasively in the end, that the governor had fulfilled his Executive duties in deciding whether a special election would be called, or when the issue would be put before the people.

The feeling beforehand was that the same-sex marriage issue would go down in flames if it was tied so closely to the re-election of the (Republican) President in November. Somewhat lower turnout was expected in the primary, which was thought to help keep it from passing. I wonder now if that was true. I mean, on the one hand, one would *think* something like a constitutional prohibition of rights would get people out to vote if they were *going* to oppose it, so could we have done much better with more mobilization? Hard to say.

I guess we'll have to look for trends in Louisiana (which votes Sept. 18th), or Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah in November to see if this holds true or not.

From:

All I saw was the narrow percentage passing it in St. Louis...which is almost the same thing, since STL is an independent city, not actually in any counties. Kansas City merely has the hassle of being in portions of 5 different counties...

From:

I was looking at the picture at right. I suppose I should have said "district" instead of "county"

From:

Eww. that was an ugly bit of HTML. Feel free to delete that post.

From:

bean-drui.livejournal.com

What fuckers!!!! It's one thing to not like the idea of same sex marriage, as I know many people do...but it takes a sad, sad person to go out and vote to make sure that people aren't treated with equality because you don't like their lifestyle!

I mean seriously, how is legalized gay marriage actually going to hurt anyone?!

From:

mysticbane.livejournal.com

We are no longer in the land of the free my friends..... with this act our gov't has stamped out a basic right that was supposed to be for everyone. They say "Oh you can get married to anyone you want.... but not if it's the same sex as you". First they were telling us who we could worship, then they were telling us we had to fight a war that many didn't beleive in. Now it's where we can smoke, how we raise our kids, and who we get married to. Anyone else see where this is leading? lol Viva Le Resistance! lol

From:

Frankly, I don't think the government should be able to tell you where you can put your weiner...

Well okay that's kind of crude but it's the truth. Missouri is one of the states in our country that has sodomy laws still on the books. So all you kinky sex freaks are breaking the law by going through with backdoor shinnanigans.

At any rate, Missouri is a conservative state. If you look at past trends in voting, you'll see that the state has had a strong conservative swing to most of it's issues presented.

Personally I know quite a few people even around where I'm at who don't like the idea of gay marriage. I personally don't care either way, if you want to be with someone you love rock on. Perhaps an agreement of legal loopholing will work out?

What about Civil Unions. Different name, same beneifts financially and socially as "Marriage" just under a new name. We live in a PC world, and giving new names to old concepts is just apart of life.

Think on it.

Later

From:

Frankly, I don't think the government should be able to tell you where you can put your weiner...

That's sort of where I shake out on this thing. The state has absolutely no compelling interest in who I sleep with.

And, at the next level, marriage as a sacred-cow "defensible" concept belongs to the churches, not to the state. If you view marriage as a purely civil concept, you have to hit the position that the state is not permitted to discriminate based on gender in any situation. Does your gender affect your ability to sign a contract? I think no, but I'm generally the martian, so my logic may not be universally acceptable.

It's all very mind-boggling, that this is even an issue.

From:

Yet another of the reasons I love you like I do. Even if you ~~won't~~ can't marry us. :)

From:

remember, they're not saying who can marry

Sure, they're not denying gays the right to marry, they're just saying they have to marry people of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. So it's not discrimination. In fact, it's anti-discriminatory because it ensures that everybody conforms to the same system, right?

This is the part where my head hits the desk, repeatedly.

Even if you ~~won't~~ can't marry us. :)

I told you I would if it ever became legal to do so. But especially now, that seems like something out of science fiction compared to where society actually is on things. It's all very depressing.

From:

I know; that's why I struck the won't.

In other news (for once), thanks for reminding me to add ~~Stranger~~ to my reading list.

From:

As much as it's been tried, a seperation of religious doctrine vs political doctrine is nigh impossible.

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, there are clearly points of good vs evil where this is involved it just depends on how you want to look at it.

As for gender when it comes down to signing a contract...you're absolutely right. However, you have to also take into account that Missouri is also known as "Misery" because this state has a really big proportion of God Fearing assholes.

I say this with extreme confidence. I lived for abit in Springfield, a town that has Megaplexes to God. You ever seen those "Supersized" churches? Y'know, the ones that you can mistake for an AMC 24 or Nebraska Furniture Mart? Yeah. There was at the time I was living there one of those things for every titty bar that I could think of, and believe me I knew quite a few.

"Moral outrage" of the good folks of missouri is what is fueling this. I mean we live next door to assholes like Jerry Falwell and his brigade. We're wading in a sea of intolerance in Missouri, and it seems that they're talking loud and proud.

So do you see the connection? It's more for appeasing the good "religious" feeling that is beaten into peoples heads while growing up.

"Man + Woman = Okay. Everything Else Baaaadddd nooo!"

I'm going to go get my "9 out of 10 Roman Lions prefer Christian Meat" shirt now from Yale.

Later.
[A recovering Southern-Baptist]

From:

I'm seriously pondering a "1 of 437,563" button.

From:

I'm gonna go out on a limb here for a minute. :)

Yes, there are absolutely things that government and religion should both rule on. That "thou shalt not kill" thing? I have no problem with that being written into law. Compensation for stolen property? No problem.

It's the point at which the state starts to concern itself with moral issues that don't involve a concrete component of protecting someone from someone else's antisocial impulses that I get a little jumpy. Consensual adult relationships are one of these issues.

I don't disagree with you about the character of Missouri, and worse, among states, it's hardly the worst offender. I'm from the Actual South(tm), myself, and I know about the mega-churches, which frequently occur in towns where there is not even one titty bar as compensation. *shudder*

I have no real issue with the idea of Civil Unions either - as long as that label is applied to every such relationship recognized by the state, hetero- and homo-sexual. In my ideal world, marriage would come from the churches (which are, of course, free to discriminate to their weird little hearts' content) and be completely separate from civil unions, or whatever you want to call the set of rights and responsibilities that the state actually has an interest in.

I fully realize that this will not happen in my lifetime, but I try to take the long view.

From:

The actual Federal Marriage Amendment states, in part:
[2.] Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. (emphasis added)

Presumably, the point of this would be to outlaw civil unions and domestic partnership laws that mimic marriage in everything but name. Thankfully, even the conservatives in the Senate are a little jumpy about overriding the states on this issue...so far.

From:

Well hell. That's even-more-specialer than I originally suspected. Butt-monkeys. Elephant-nuts-washers. Every last one of them.

From:

In my ideal world, marriage would come from the churches (which are, of course, free to discriminate to their weird little hearts' content) and be completely separate from civil unions, or whatever you want to call the set of rights and responsibilities that the state actually has an interest in.

If only I had the ability to be that insightful for a possible future.

Unfortunetly I mainly just stick to drinking, swearing, and breaking people down.

"Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul" - Tycho Brahe of Penny Arcade.

I agree with you. Unfortunetly "Marriage" has a nasty hint of good old Christian mentality that it must be, should be, and always will be Man & Woman. I don't think that's going to change anytime soon no matter how many people speak/raise money/politic it.

Welcome to America...land of the free home of those who conform.

Later.

From:

If only I had the ability to be that insightful for a possible future.

Eh. You mock, but hell - the other side apparently has a lot of people working towards their ideal, why shouldn't I think about mine?

From:

Who said I was mocking?

I'm permenantly stuck in "Negative Mode!" it's just part of the programming.

From:

Mantra of the day: "I am not authorized to initiate jihad. I am not authorized to initiate jihad."

Fucking Missourians. 70.8% of you are unmitigated assholes. I'd secede from your state, but I own no property on which to establish my own government. Although, I suppose that since the state requires drivers to pay property tax on their vehicles, that means that the state recognizes a vehicle as property. Hrm... I hereby announce the birth of the People's Republic of Asmodeus, maybe.

From:

mysticbane.livejournal.com

LOL Can I join? lol

From: