So here’s what we want to know today, predictions, post them in the comments section and then debate them out.
Electoral college: Does anyone think that McCain will win tomorrow? How many electoral votes do you think that Obama will get? Does he get over 350 electoral votes?
Senate: Do the Democrats get to 60?
Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass?
Measure N: Does it get 40% of the vote?
Statewide:
Really just going to focus on two…
Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage: Does it pass?
Proposition 4, Abortion, Parental Consent: Does it pass?
That should keep people busy.
In case you missed it, here is our wrap up coverage.
There is really no issue that the Vanguard has covered more than Measure W, here is the latest coverage that we have had on that issue.
Last we argued that if Measure W fails, Emerson closes. We also argued that if Measure W passes, Emerson likely but not certainly stays open. The basic reason for this is logistics. The logistics for closing Emerson are just too tricky.
We also found out from Bruce Colby that the district does pay for cooking lessons to their staff. The only cost to the district is the employees who take the lessons. He calls it a low cost employee professional development program. And of course the main goal is to provide more healthy food choices for the students that they will eat.
He suggested that he would sit down with anyone who is interested and go over the budget.
Finally, he suggested that after the election there could be a Vanguard sponsored Q and A with him and the Superintendent.
The big news for the week came from Dweezil. Dweezil came out and endorsed Measure W yesterday.
And if you missed it, the Vanguard posted a late update with the full letter she submitted to the Enterprise.
As many know, the Vanguard has come out against Measure N. Our view is simple. I would be supportive of a city charter that is properly written and narrow, but I think this charter is too broad. It would allow too much power to future city councils. I would like to see this charter get voted down and a committee formed to draft a new one that is much more specific.
We have also provided somewhat balanced coverage on the issue alloting space to both sides.
“On further consideration, I now believe that Measure N is not in the best interest of Davis voters. Please vote no.”
In addition, we posted from Nancy Price’s letter to the editor, also in opposition.
“My objection to Measure N is that there has been virtually no communitywide presentation and discussion of what is allowed under a general law city or a charter city. Yet, we are asked to vote on a fundamental change in governance that will have far-reaching consequences.”
Proposition 8
I was not originally going to talk about this Proposition today. The Field Poll released last week showed it failing by a very small plurality 49-44. This is getting particularly nasty with ads going back and forth, including some pretty nasty ones on both sides. We were watching the TV coverage in Roseville where street protestors have lined the streets with signs–because that is going to matter for a statewide iniative. I have no idea which side is going to win, but I suspect it will depend on who turns out to vote.
Polling in 2008
In fact, all of the polling in general is going to depend on this. This is an interesting year if you like to watch polling as I do. This year more than any, the model for voting matters.
There has been a systematic difference in the polling for the Presidential race based on assumptions. Those polls that have shown the narrowest leads are the ones that have most closely adhered to a traditional voting model resembling 2000 and 2004. But will the electorate look like that where Democrats and Republicans were even in 2004?
I doubt it. Gallup has tried to bridge the gap by having two likely voting models, one based merely on past behavior, the other based on voting intentions.
But there is something else going on and the polling site FiveThirtyEight.com has captured some of it. How many African-Americans who have been apathetic in recent years will come out to vote for the first African-American President? And how many young people.
Looking at youth dominated sites, one example is Facebook where Obama has like a 70%-24% lead among those who have mobilized to get out the vote. If you do not use Facebook, you may not understand what this means, but there is an application that allows people to set their “status” to get out the vote, and by a huge margin most have mobilized for Obama rather than McCain. That is a snap shot, but a telling one.
Here is what FiveThirtyEight.com has shown, there is a gap between those polls that poll cellphone-only voters, who are most likely to be younger voters and those who do not. Those in bright contact cellphone-only voters and there is a noticeable gap there.
What does this mean? Depending on youth turn out, the Obama lead could be understated even in the more generous models.
We just do not know. And that’s why they vote.
So we’ll find out tomorrow. In the meantime, tell us what you think.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Senate: Do the Democrats get to 60? Unfortunately I think they will only get to 58 or 59
Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Yes
Measure N: Does it get 40% of the vote? This one is a mystery to me
Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage: Does it pass? No, and by a much wider margin than most would expect. I believe the Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.
Proposition 4, Abortion, Parental Consent: Does it pass? No.
Senate: Do the Democrats get to 60? Unfortunately I think they will only get to 58 or 59
Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Yes
Measure N: Does it get 40% of the vote? This one is a mystery to me
Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage: Does it pass? No, and by a much wider margin than most would expect. I believe the Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.
Proposition 4, Abortion, Parental Consent: Does it pass? No.
Senate: Do the Democrats get to 60? Unfortunately I think they will only get to 58 or 59
Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Yes
Measure N: Does it get 40% of the vote? This one is a mystery to me
Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage: Does it pass? No, and by a much wider margin than most would expect. I believe the Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.
Proposition 4, Abortion, Parental Consent: Does it pass? No.
Senate: Do the Democrats get to 60? Unfortunately I think they will only get to 58 or 59
Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Yes
Measure N: Does it get 40% of the vote? This one is a mystery to me
Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage: Does it pass? No, and by a much wider margin than most would expect. I believe the Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.
Proposition 4, Abortion, Parental Consent: Does it pass? No.
Do you know if Early Voting is available today, Monday, at Senior Center? At UCD? and for all registered Davis voters? What is needed to show you are registered and can vote early? thanks. I believe these questions have been woefully covered in the press.
Do you know if Early Voting is available today, Monday, at Senior Center? At UCD? and for all registered Davis voters? What is needed to show you are registered and can vote early? thanks. I believe these questions have been woefully covered in the press.
Do you know if Early Voting is available today, Monday, at Senior Center? At UCD? and for all registered Davis voters? What is needed to show you are registered and can vote early? thanks. I believe these questions have been woefully covered in the press.
Do you know if Early Voting is available today, Monday, at Senior Center? At UCD? and for all registered Davis voters? What is needed to show you are registered and can vote early? thanks. I believe these questions have been woefully covered in the press.
Why depend on the press? Get it directly: http://www.yoloelections.org/
You can even check your registration.
Why depend on the press? Get it directly: http://www.yoloelections.org/
You can even check your registration.
Why depend on the press? Get it directly: http://www.yoloelections.org/
You can even check your registration.
Why depend on the press? Get it directly: http://www.yoloelections.org/
You can even check your registration.
Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.
These ads attempt to get a reflex emotional response and distract from thoughtful reflection on the issue. They are based upon the Chewbacca Defense(The Chewbacca defense is a fictional legal strategy used in Chef Aid. It is a form of Red Herring argument, used to deliberately confuse the jury).
Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.
These ads attempt to get a reflex emotional response and distract from thoughtful reflection on the issue. They are based upon the Chewbacca Defense(The Chewbacca defense is a fictional legal strategy used in Chef Aid. It is a form of Red Herring argument, used to deliberately confuse the jury).
Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.
These ads attempt to get a reflex emotional response and distract from thoughtful reflection on the issue. They are based upon the Chewbacca Defense(The Chewbacca defense is a fictional legal strategy used in Chef Aid. It is a form of Red Herring argument, used to deliberately confuse the jury).
Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.
These ads attempt to get a reflex emotional response and distract from thoughtful reflection on the issue. They are based upon the Chewbacca Defense(The Chewbacca defense is a fictional legal strategy used in Chef Aid. It is a form of Red Herring argument, used to deliberately confuse the jury).
“distract from thoughtful reflection on the issue.”
I’m sorry but the moment the Yes on 8 side decided to make the issue about kids learning about same sex marriages at school, there was no thoughtful discussion on it.
I was listening to the people interviewed in Roseville and the one thing that was said that settled it for me was the guy with the Yes sign saying that he was afraid his kids would learn about same sex marriage in school and would think it was alright for them to marry someone of their own sex. You know there is a word for that view point and it is “homophobia.” They are afraid that their kids are going to be gay. That’s nonsense. And the Yes on campaign played into it.
Frankly the commercial was correct, you know, we have a checkered past when it comes to civil rights, there was a time when people felt the same way about interracial marriage as they do about same sex marriage. Wrong is wrong.
“distract from thoughtful reflection on the issue.”
I’m sorry but the moment the Yes on 8 side decided to make the issue about kids learning about same sex marriages at school, there was no thoughtful discussion on it.
I was listening to the people interviewed in Roseville and the one thing that was said that settled it for me was the guy with the Yes sign saying that he was afraid his kids would learn about same sex marriage in school and would think it was alright for them to marry someone of their own sex. You know there is a word for that view point and it is “homophobia.” They are afraid that their kids are going to be gay. That’s nonsense. And the Yes on campaign played into it.
Frankly the commercial was correct, you know, we have a checkered past when it comes to civil rights, there was a time when people felt the same way about interracial marriage as they do about same sex marriage. Wrong is wrong.
“distract from thoughtful reflection on the issue.”
I’m sorry but the moment the Yes on 8 side decided to make the issue about kids learning about same sex marriages at school, there was no thoughtful discussion on it.
I was listening to the people interviewed in Roseville and the one thing that was said that settled it for me was the guy with the Yes sign saying that he was afraid his kids would learn about same sex marriage in school and would think it was alright for them to marry someone of their own sex. You know there is a word for that view point and it is “homophobia.” They are afraid that their kids are going to be gay. That’s nonsense. And the Yes on campaign played into it.
Frankly the commercial was correct, you know, we have a checkered past when it comes to civil rights, there was a time when people felt the same way about interracial marriage as they do about same sex marriage. Wrong is wrong.
“distract from thoughtful reflection on the issue.”
I’m sorry but the moment the Yes on 8 side decided to make the issue about kids learning about same sex marriages at school, there was no thoughtful discussion on it.
I was listening to the people interviewed in Roseville and the one thing that was said that settled it for me was the guy with the Yes sign saying that he was afraid his kids would learn about same sex marriage in school and would think it was alright for them to marry someone of their own sex. You know there is a word for that view point and it is “homophobia.” They are afraid that their kids are going to be gay. That’s nonsense. And the Yes on campaign played into it.
Frankly the commercial was correct, you know, we have a checkered past when it comes to civil rights, there was a time when people felt the same way about interracial marriage as they do about same sex marriage. Wrong is wrong.
As a parent of young children I am perplexed by the concern that children might find out about gay marriage if 8 is voted down.
Leaving aside all the children who already are out there who HAVE same-sex parents (and there are plenty), in addition to those with gay aunts and uncles, neighbors, and family friends … what do the prop-8 folks think is going to happen if children find out that homosexuality exists?
My kids know about it, and it hasn’t affected them at all. I knew about it as a kid – we had a family friend who came out when I was about 8 – and it did not change my orientation in the least.
Pretending this is about children and “parental rights” is a phony cover for one’s own personal distaste for homosexuality.
As a parent of young children I am perplexed by the concern that children might find out about gay marriage if 8 is voted down.
Leaving aside all the children who already are out there who HAVE same-sex parents (and there are plenty), in addition to those with gay aunts and uncles, neighbors, and family friends … what do the prop-8 folks think is going to happen if children find out that homosexuality exists?
My kids know about it, and it hasn’t affected them at all. I knew about it as a kid – we had a family friend who came out when I was about 8 – and it did not change my orientation in the least.
Pretending this is about children and “parental rights” is a phony cover for one’s own personal distaste for homosexuality.
As a parent of young children I am perplexed by the concern that children might find out about gay marriage if 8 is voted down.
Leaving aside all the children who already are out there who HAVE same-sex parents (and there are plenty), in addition to those with gay aunts and uncles, neighbors, and family friends … what do the prop-8 folks think is going to happen if children find out that homosexuality exists?
My kids know about it, and it hasn’t affected them at all. I knew about it as a kid – we had a family friend who came out when I was about 8 – and it did not change my orientation in the least.
Pretending this is about children and “parental rights” is a phony cover for one’s own personal distaste for homosexuality.
As a parent of young children I am perplexed by the concern that children might find out about gay marriage if 8 is voted down.
Leaving aside all the children who already are out there who HAVE same-sex parents (and there are plenty), in addition to those with gay aunts and uncles, neighbors, and family friends … what do the prop-8 folks think is going to happen if children find out that homosexuality exists?
My kids know about it, and it hasn’t affected them at all. I knew about it as a kid – we had a family friend who came out when I was about 8 – and it did not change my orientation in the least.
Pretending this is about children and “parental rights” is a phony cover for one’s own personal distaste for homosexuality.
I agree “WRONG is WRONG”. It is WRONG for 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges to assume the power to change society’s traditional definition of marriage. Their ruling has little to do with civil rights which could have been addressed by instructing the CA Legislature(as had been done in Vermont,I believe) that civil-union status must have exactly the same CIVIL RIGHTS as marriage status to be constitutional. To equate prohibiting interracial marriage or holding US citizens in concentration camps during WW II with keeping society’s traditional definition of marriage while guaranteeing full substantive civil rights to civil-unions is hyperbole akin to Obama being labelled a communist and palling around with terrorists.
Unfortunately, the people on both sides with extreme personal agendas on this issue, make up the most exciting material for the media.
I agree “WRONG is WRONG”. It is WRONG for 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges to assume the power to change society’s traditional definition of marriage. Their ruling has little to do with civil rights which could have been addressed by instructing the CA Legislature(as had been done in Vermont,I believe) that civil-union status must have exactly the same CIVIL RIGHTS as marriage status to be constitutional. To equate prohibiting interracial marriage or holding US citizens in concentration camps during WW II with keeping society’s traditional definition of marriage while guaranteeing full substantive civil rights to civil-unions is hyperbole akin to Obama being labelled a communist and palling around with terrorists.
Unfortunately, the people on both sides with extreme personal agendas on this issue, make up the most exciting material for the media.
I agree “WRONG is WRONG”. It is WRONG for 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges to assume the power to change society’s traditional definition of marriage. Their ruling has little to do with civil rights which could have been addressed by instructing the CA Legislature(as had been done in Vermont,I believe) that civil-union status must have exactly the same CIVIL RIGHTS as marriage status to be constitutional. To equate prohibiting interracial marriage or holding US citizens in concentration camps during WW II with keeping society’s traditional definition of marriage while guaranteeing full substantive civil rights to civil-unions is hyperbole akin to Obama being labelled a communist and palling around with terrorists.
Unfortunately, the people on both sides with extreme personal agendas on this issue, make up the most exciting material for the media.
I agree “WRONG is WRONG”. It is WRONG for 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges to assume the power to change society’s traditional definition of marriage. Their ruling has little to do with civil rights which could have been addressed by instructing the CA Legislature(as had been done in Vermont,I believe) that civil-union status must have exactly the same CIVIL RIGHTS as marriage status to be constitutional. To equate prohibiting interracial marriage or holding US citizens in concentration camps during WW II with keeping society’s traditional definition of marriage while guaranteeing full substantive civil rights to civil-unions is hyperbole akin to Obama being labelled a communist and palling around with terrorists.
Unfortunately, the people on both sides with extreme personal agendas on this issue, make up the most exciting material for the media.
Electoral college: Does anyone think that McCain will win tomorrow? No.
How many electoral votes do you think that Obama will get? Obama 353, McCain 185
Senate: Do the Democrats get to 60? 56 Dems* in the Senate, 42 Repubs, 2 Inds. With Lieberman, Sanders, Collins and Snowe, the Dems can shut down a fillibuster on court appointments.
* Obama to be replaced by Jesse Jackson, Jr. & Biden to be replaced by Myron Steele.
Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Measure W gets 63% yes, 37% no.
Measure N: Does it get 40% of the vote? Measure N gets 50.2% yes, 49.8% no.
Proposition 8: Same Sex Marriage? 49% yes, 51% no.
Proposition 4 Abortion, Parental Consent: Does it pass? 46.38% yes, 53.62% no.
Electoral college: Does anyone think that McCain will win tomorrow? No.
How many electoral votes do you think that Obama will get? Obama 353, McCain 185
Senate: Do the Democrats get to 60? 56 Dems* in the Senate, 42 Repubs, 2 Inds. With Lieberman, Sanders, Collins and Snowe, the Dems can shut down a fillibuster on court appointments.
* Obama to be replaced by Jesse Jackson, Jr. & Biden to be replaced by Myron Steele.
Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Measure W gets 63% yes, 37% no.
Measure N: Does it get 40% of the vote? Measure N gets 50.2% yes, 49.8% no.
Proposition 8: Same Sex Marriage? 49% yes, 51% no.
Proposition 4 Abortion, Parental Consent: Does it pass? 46.38% yes, 53.62% no.
Electoral college: Does anyone think that McCain will win tomorrow? No.
How many electoral votes do you think that Obama will get? Obama 353, McCain 185
Senate: Do the Democrats get to 60? 56 Dems* in the Senate, 42 Repubs, 2 Inds. With Lieberman, Sanders, Collins and Snowe, the Dems can shut down a fillibuster on court appointments.
* Obama to be replaced by Jesse Jackson, Jr. & Biden to be replaced by Myron Steele.
Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Measure W gets 63% yes, 37% no.
Measure N: Does it get 40% of the vote? Measure N gets 50.2% yes, 49.8% no.
Proposition 8: Same Sex Marriage? 49% yes, 51% no.
Proposition 4 Abortion, Parental Consent: Does it pass? 46.38% yes, 53.62% no.
Electoral college: Does anyone think that McCain will win tomorrow? No.
How many electoral votes do you think that Obama will get? Obama 353, McCain 185
Senate: Do the Democrats get to 60? 56 Dems* in the Senate, 42 Repubs, 2 Inds. With Lieberman, Sanders, Collins and Snowe, the Dems can shut down a fillibuster on court appointments.
* Obama to be replaced by Jesse Jackson, Jr. & Biden to be replaced by Myron Steele.
Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Measure W gets 63% yes, 37% no.
Measure N: Does it get 40% of the vote? Measure N gets 50.2% yes, 49.8% no.
Proposition 8: Same Sex Marriage? 49% yes, 51% no.
Proposition 4 Abortion, Parental Consent: Does it pass? 46.38% yes, 53.62% no.
“It is WRONG for 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges to assume the power to change society’s traditional definition of marriage.”
I just don’t agree it is wrong. THe courts have a role in protecting the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority, much as they did in Brown v. Board. What’s more the voters of California still get the final say to overrule the courts.
“It is WRONG for 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges to assume the power to change society’s traditional definition of marriage.”
I just don’t agree it is wrong. THe courts have a role in protecting the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority, much as they did in Brown v. Board. What’s more the voters of California still get the final say to overrule the courts.
“It is WRONG for 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges to assume the power to change society’s traditional definition of marriage.”
I just don’t agree it is wrong. THe courts have a role in protecting the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority, much as they did in Brown v. Board. What’s more the voters of California still get the final say to overrule the courts.
“It is WRONG for 4 of 7 CA Supreme Court judges to assume the power to change society’s traditional definition of marriage.”
I just don’t agree it is wrong. THe courts have a role in protecting the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority, much as they did in Brown v. Board. What’s more the voters of California still get the final say to overrule the courts.
“Unfortunately, the people on both sides with extreme personal agendas on this issue, make up the most exciting material for the media.”
Referring to the Field Poll a few days ago, they reported that many voters were conflicted,finding merit on both sides of the Prop 8 issue. I have not seen or heard of anything focusing on this in other mainstream media reports or voter interviews.
“Unfortunately, the people on both sides with extreme personal agendas on this issue, make up the most exciting material for the media.”
Referring to the Field Poll a few days ago, they reported that many voters were conflicted,finding merit on both sides of the Prop 8 issue. I have not seen or heard of anything focusing on this in other mainstream media reports or voter interviews.
“Unfortunately, the people on both sides with extreme personal agendas on this issue, make up the most exciting material for the media.”
Referring to the Field Poll a few days ago, they reported that many voters were conflicted,finding merit on both sides of the Prop 8 issue. I have not seen or heard of anything focusing on this in other mainstream media reports or voter interviews.
“Unfortunately, the people on both sides with extreme personal agendas on this issue, make up the most exciting material for the media.”
Referring to the Field Poll a few days ago, they reported that many voters were conflicted,finding merit on both sides of the Prop 8 issue. I have not seen or heard of anything focusing on this in other mainstream media reports or voter interviews.
“I believe the Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.”
Where are those ads online? I haven’t seen them.
“I believe the Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.”
Where are those ads online? I haven’t seen them.
“I believe the Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.”
Where are those ads online? I haven’t seen them.
“I believe the Japanese Internment Camp and Interracial Marriage ads of the past few days will energize a lot of voters who were likely to stand on the sidelines. IMHO, those were powerful ads.”
Where are those ads online? I haven’t seen them.
“Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Measure W gets 63% yes, 37% no.”
That’s a puzzling prediction. The only game I’ve seen in town is yes on measure W, and it seems Davis has had a history of supporting parcel taxes for the schools.
Where do you deduce that result?
“Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Measure W gets 63% yes, 37% no.”
That’s a puzzling prediction. The only game I’ve seen in town is yes on measure W, and it seems Davis has had a history of supporting parcel taxes for the schools.
Where do you deduce that result?
“Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Measure W gets 63% yes, 37% no.”
That’s a puzzling prediction. The only game I’ve seen in town is yes on measure W, and it seems Davis has had a history of supporting parcel taxes for the schools.
Where do you deduce that result?
“Measure W: Does it get to the 66.7% it needs to pass? Measure W gets 63% yes, 37% no.”
That’s a puzzling prediction. The only game I’ve seen in town is yes on measure W, and it seems Davis has had a history of supporting parcel taxes for the schools.
Where do you deduce that result?
One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.
All of that advertising costs a tremendous amount of money. The Bee had a story, and I’ve seen others elsewhere, that the Mormon Church is largely financing this campaign. Not the church as a church, but the church as its membership. This is from the Bee:
“Church members have donated about 40 percent of the $22.8 million raised to pass the initiative since July, according to Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com, the primary backer of the “yes” campaign.”
On NPR, I heard interviews with individual Mormons who had given $30,000 each to fund Yes on 8. That is a serious amount of cash.
I realize that Mormons, like most conservative Christians, believe that being gay is a sin, and thus having the state recognize a gay marriage equates for them with the state sanctifying a sin. Yet there is a great irony with Mormons preaching to the rest of American society about traditional marriage values.
This is a church which was founded by a polygamist, Joseph Smith, and was built into an enduring institution by Brigham Young*, another polygamist. The idea that polygamy was moral or somehow sanctified by their god was invented by Mr. Smith, in order to satisfy his desire to sleep with dozens of women.
Once it became in the financial and political interest of Utah to become an American state, the Mormon Church instantly changed its views on polygamy and officially banned the practice which had been its tradition from the start. (To this day, there are Mormon offshoots, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ, LDS, who continue to practice what Jos. Smith started.)
As such, it is very strange that a group with that history would be lecturing anyone else on “traditional” marriage.
Another group which has helped finance Yes on 8, giving over $1 million, according to the Bee, is the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men’s group. Again, I am sure there motives are based on the idea that homosexuality is a sin and the state should not recognize gay marriage for that reason.
That said, given the fact that a very large percentage of Catholic priests are gay and that the Church has had a long history of sexual abuse, it strikes me as odd that this group would (figuratively speaking) come out of the closet and finance the Yes on 8 campgaign.
* Brigham Young’s famous great grandson — because Brig has so many wives and so many children, he literally has thousands of great-grandchildren — former 49er QB Steve Young is perhaps the most well known Mormon opposing Prop 8.
One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.
All of that advertising costs a tremendous amount of money. The Bee had a story, and I’ve seen others elsewhere, that the Mormon Church is largely financing this campaign. Not the church as a church, but the church as its membership. This is from the Bee:
“Church members have donated about 40 percent of the $22.8 million raised to pass the initiative since July, according to Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com, the primary backer of the “yes” campaign.”
On NPR, I heard interviews with individual Mormons who had given $30,000 each to fund Yes on 8. That is a serious amount of cash.
I realize that Mormons, like most conservative Christians, believe that being gay is a sin, and thus having the state recognize a gay marriage equates for them with the state sanctifying a sin. Yet there is a great irony with Mormons preaching to the rest of American society about traditional marriage values.
This is a church which was founded by a polygamist, Joseph Smith, and was built into an enduring institution by Brigham Young*, another polygamist. The idea that polygamy was moral or somehow sanctified by their god was invented by Mr. Smith, in order to satisfy his desire to sleep with dozens of women.
Once it became in the financial and political interest of Utah to become an American state, the Mormon Church instantly changed its views on polygamy and officially banned the practice which had been its tradition from the start. (To this day, there are Mormon offshoots, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ, LDS, who continue to practice what Jos. Smith started.)
As such, it is very strange that a group with that history would be lecturing anyone else on “traditional” marriage.
Another group which has helped finance Yes on 8, giving over $1 million, according to the Bee, is the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men’s group. Again, I am sure there motives are based on the idea that homosexuality is a sin and the state should not recognize gay marriage for that reason.
That said, given the fact that a very large percentage of Catholic priests are gay and that the Church has had a long history of sexual abuse, it strikes me as odd that this group would (figuratively speaking) come out of the closet and finance the Yes on 8 campgaign.
* Brigham Young’s famous great grandson — because Brig has so many wives and so many children, he literally has thousands of great-grandchildren — former 49er QB Steve Young is perhaps the most well known Mormon opposing Prop 8.
One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.
All of that advertising costs a tremendous amount of money. The Bee had a story, and I’ve seen others elsewhere, that the Mormon Church is largely financing this campaign. Not the church as a church, but the church as its membership. This is from the Bee:
“Church members have donated about 40 percent of the $22.8 million raised to pass the initiative since July, according to Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com, the primary backer of the “yes” campaign.”
On NPR, I heard interviews with individual Mormons who had given $30,000 each to fund Yes on 8. That is a serious amount of cash.
I realize that Mormons, like most conservative Christians, believe that being gay is a sin, and thus having the state recognize a gay marriage equates for them with the state sanctifying a sin. Yet there is a great irony with Mormons preaching to the rest of American society about traditional marriage values.
This is a church which was founded by a polygamist, Joseph Smith, and was built into an enduring institution by Brigham Young*, another polygamist. The idea that polygamy was moral or somehow sanctified by their god was invented by Mr. Smith, in order to satisfy his desire to sleep with dozens of women.
Once it became in the financial and political interest of Utah to become an American state, the Mormon Church instantly changed its views on polygamy and officially banned the practice which had been its tradition from the start. (To this day, there are Mormon offshoots, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ, LDS, who continue to practice what Jos. Smith started.)
As such, it is very strange that a group with that history would be lecturing anyone else on “traditional” marriage.
Another group which has helped finance Yes on 8, giving over $1 million, according to the Bee, is the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men’s group. Again, I am sure there motives are based on the idea that homosexuality is a sin and the state should not recognize gay marriage for that reason.
That said, given the fact that a very large percentage of Catholic priests are gay and that the Church has had a long history of sexual abuse, it strikes me as odd that this group would (figuratively speaking) come out of the closet and finance the Yes on 8 campgaign.
* Brigham Young’s famous great grandson — because Brig has so many wives and so many children, he literally has thousands of great-grandchildren — former 49er QB Steve Young is perhaps the most well known Mormon opposing Prop 8.
One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.
All of that advertising costs a tremendous amount of money. The Bee had a story, and I’ve seen others elsewhere, that the Mormon Church is largely financing this campaign. Not the church as a church, but the church as its membership. This is from the Bee:
“Church members have donated about 40 percent of the $22.8 million raised to pass the initiative since July, according to Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com, the primary backer of the “yes” campaign.”
On NPR, I heard interviews with individual Mormons who had given $30,000 each to fund Yes on 8. That is a serious amount of cash.
I realize that Mormons, like most conservative Christians, believe that being gay is a sin, and thus having the state recognize a gay marriage equates for them with the state sanctifying a sin. Yet there is a great irony with Mormons preaching to the rest of American society about traditional marriage values.
This is a church which was founded by a polygamist, Joseph Smith, and was built into an enduring institution by Brigham Young*, another polygamist. The idea that polygamy was moral or somehow sanctified by their god was invented by Mr. Smith, in order to satisfy his desire to sleep with dozens of women.
Once it became in the financial and political interest of Utah to become an American state, the Mormon Church instantly changed its views on polygamy and officially banned the practice which had been its tradition from the start. (To this day, there are Mormon offshoots, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ, LDS, who continue to practice what Jos. Smith started.)
As such, it is very strange that a group with that history would be lecturing anyone else on “traditional” marriage.
Another group which has helped finance Yes on 8, giving over $1 million, according to the Bee, is the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men’s group. Again, I am sure there motives are based on the idea that homosexuality is a sin and the state should not recognize gay marriage for that reason.
That said, given the fact that a very large percentage of Catholic priests are gay and that the Church has had a long history of sexual abuse, it strikes me as odd that this group would (figuratively speaking) come out of the closet and finance the Yes on 8 campgaign.
* Brigham Young’s famous great grandson — because Brig has so many wives and so many children, he literally has thousands of great-grandchildren — former 49er QB Steve Young is perhaps the most well known Mormon opposing Prop 8.
Link to ad:
No on Prop 8 Ad
Link to ad:
No on Prop 8 Ad
Link to ad:
No on Prop 8 Ad
Link to ad:
No on Prop 8 Ad
Rich:
“One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.”
You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that more money has been spent on Prop 8 than any other in California’s history.
Rich:
“One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.”
You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that more money has been spent on Prop 8 than any other in California’s history.
Rich:
“One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.”
You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that more money has been spent on Prop 8 than any other in California’s history.
Rich:
“One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.”
You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that more money has been spent on Prop 8 than any other in California’s history.
“The only game I’ve seen in town is yes on measure W, and it seems Davis has had a history of supporting parcel taxes for the schools. Where do you deduce that result?”
Just a hunch. The economy is quite bad now, and I think a decent minority of Davis voters will not want to increase their taxes at this time, because they feel they cannot afford it…. Note that I am a bad prognosticator: I had Al Gore winning in 2000; I had Measure X winning a close contest; and last year, I wrote that Hillary would beat Huckabee for president. Perhaps the only election contest I got right was Saddam Hussein’s win in 1998, when he secured 100% of the “President for Life” votes in Iraq.
“The only game I’ve seen in town is yes on measure W, and it seems Davis has had a history of supporting parcel taxes for the schools. Where do you deduce that result?”
Just a hunch. The economy is quite bad now, and I think a decent minority of Davis voters will not want to increase their taxes at this time, because they feel they cannot afford it…. Note that I am a bad prognosticator: I had Al Gore winning in 2000; I had Measure X winning a close contest; and last year, I wrote that Hillary would beat Huckabee for president. Perhaps the only election contest I got right was Saddam Hussein’s win in 1998, when he secured 100% of the “President for Life” votes in Iraq.
“The only game I’ve seen in town is yes on measure W, and it seems Davis has had a history of supporting parcel taxes for the schools. Where do you deduce that result?”
Just a hunch. The economy is quite bad now, and I think a decent minority of Davis voters will not want to increase their taxes at this time, because they feel they cannot afford it…. Note that I am a bad prognosticator: I had Al Gore winning in 2000; I had Measure X winning a close contest; and last year, I wrote that Hillary would beat Huckabee for president. Perhaps the only election contest I got right was Saddam Hussein’s win in 1998, when he secured 100% of the “President for Life” votes in Iraq.
“The only game I’ve seen in town is yes on measure W, and it seems Davis has had a history of supporting parcel taxes for the schools. Where do you deduce that result?”
Just a hunch. The economy is quite bad now, and I think a decent minority of Davis voters will not want to increase their taxes at this time, because they feel they cannot afford it…. Note that I am a bad prognosticator: I had Al Gore winning in 2000; I had Measure X winning a close contest; and last year, I wrote that Hillary would beat Huckabee for president. Perhaps the only election contest I got right was Saddam Hussein’s win in 1998, when he secured 100% of the “President for Life” votes in Iraq.
“You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that more money has been spent on Prop 8 than any other in California’s history.”
I am not seeing “Yes on 8” ads on the shows and websites I see…. I guess Bravo* and Lifetime and other channels I avoid have those ads. As such, it feels (from my viewing habits) that the spending is mostly one-sided.
By the way…. I noticed on the South Davis side of the Richards Blvd underpass this morning a Yes on 8 sign on public property…. In Davis, the No on 8 signs appear to me to outnumber the Yes signs 50:1.
* Project Runway is a guilty pleasure, but it’s not on, now.
“You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that more money has been spent on Prop 8 than any other in California’s history.”
I am not seeing “Yes on 8” ads on the shows and websites I see…. I guess Bravo* and Lifetime and other channels I avoid have those ads. As such, it feels (from my viewing habits) that the spending is mostly one-sided.
By the way…. I noticed on the South Davis side of the Richards Blvd underpass this morning a Yes on 8 sign on public property…. In Davis, the No on 8 signs appear to me to outnumber the Yes signs 50:1.
* Project Runway is a guilty pleasure, but it’s not on, now.
“You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that more money has been spent on Prop 8 than any other in California’s history.”
I am not seeing “Yes on 8” ads on the shows and websites I see…. I guess Bravo* and Lifetime and other channels I avoid have those ads. As such, it feels (from my viewing habits) that the spending is mostly one-sided.
By the way…. I noticed on the South Davis side of the Richards Blvd underpass this morning a Yes on 8 sign on public property…. In Davis, the No on 8 signs appear to me to outnumber the Yes signs 50:1.
* Project Runway is a guilty pleasure, but it’s not on, now.
“You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that more money has been spent on Prop 8 than any other in California’s history.”
I am not seeing “Yes on 8” ads on the shows and websites I see…. I guess Bravo* and Lifetime and other channels I avoid have those ads. As such, it feels (from my viewing habits) that the spending is mostly one-sided.
By the way…. I noticed on the South Davis side of the Richards Blvd underpass this morning a Yes on 8 sign on public property…. In Davis, the No on 8 signs appear to me to outnumber the Yes signs 50:1.
* Project Runway is a guilty pleasure, but it’s not on, now.
One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.
That’s interesting. I live in Davis, work in Sacramento, don’t watch TV, listen to NPR (and KDRT on occasion), and visit my left leaning political blogs. I see ephemeral signage for Yes on 8 and am left with the impression No on 8 is stronger. So the Yes on 8 media barrage generally eludes me.
One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.
That’s interesting. I live in Davis, work in Sacramento, don’t watch TV, listen to NPR (and KDRT on occasion), and visit my left leaning political blogs. I see ephemeral signage for Yes on 8 and am left with the impression No on 8 is stronger. So the Yes on 8 media barrage generally eludes me.
One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.
That’s interesting. I live in Davis, work in Sacramento, don’t watch TV, listen to NPR (and KDRT on occasion), and visit my left leaning political blogs. I see ephemeral signage for Yes on 8 and am left with the impression No on 8 is stronger. So the Yes on 8 media barrage generally eludes me.
One thing which has surprised me in this election is the huge amount of money being spent on the Prop 8 campaign. It probably has to do with the fact that I watch a lot of sports on TV and read sports-oriented web sites on-line, but everywhere I go I am seeing Yes on 8 ads.
That’s interesting. I live in Davis, work in Sacramento, don’t watch TV, listen to NPR (and KDRT on occasion), and visit my left leaning political blogs. I see ephemeral signage for Yes on 8 and am left with the impression No on 8 is stronger. So the Yes on 8 media barrage generally eludes me.
“By the way…. I noticed on the South Davis side of the Richards Blvd underpass this morning a Yes on 8 sign on public property…. In Davis, the No on 8 signs appear to me to outnumber the Yes signs 50:1.”
Covell between Pole Line and West Davis had Yes on 8 signs in several places on Sunday and this morning.
“By the way…. I noticed on the South Davis side of the Richards Blvd underpass this morning a Yes on 8 sign on public property…. In Davis, the No on 8 signs appear to me to outnumber the Yes signs 50:1.”
Covell between Pole Line and West Davis had Yes on 8 signs in several places on Sunday and this morning.
“By the way…. I noticed on the South Davis side of the Richards Blvd underpass this morning a Yes on 8 sign on public property…. In Davis, the No on 8 signs appear to me to outnumber the Yes signs 50:1.”
Covell between Pole Line and West Davis had Yes on 8 signs in several places on Sunday and this morning.
“By the way…. I noticed on the South Davis side of the Richards Blvd underpass this morning a Yes on 8 sign on public property…. In Davis, the No on 8 signs appear to me to outnumber the Yes signs 50:1.”
Covell between Pole Line and West Davis had Yes on 8 signs in several places on Sunday and this morning.
I am not seeing “Yes on 8” ads on the shows…
Got that backwards: I am not seeing “No on 8” ads.
I am not seeing “Yes on 8” ads on the shows…
Got that backwards: I am not seeing “No on 8” ads.
I am not seeing “Yes on 8” ads on the shows…
Got that backwards: I am not seeing “No on 8” ads.
I am not seeing “Yes on 8” ads on the shows…
Got that backwards: I am not seeing “No on 8” ads.
…just to keep the balance sheet straight(no pun intended) on funding for Prop 8, Hollywood moguls are funding the lion’s share of the No on 8 campaign. Spielberg, among others, has contributed $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. I hesitate to even guess what Davis Geffen, a well-known gay Hollywood entertainment mogul with an estimated worth of over $2 billion,contributed the Prop 8.
…just to keep the balance sheet straight(no pun intended) on funding for Prop 8, Hollywood moguls are funding the lion’s share of the No on 8 campaign. Spielberg, among others, has contributed $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. I hesitate to even guess what Davis Geffen, a well-known gay Hollywood entertainment mogul with an estimated worth of over $2 billion,contributed the Prop 8.
…just to keep the balance sheet straight(no pun intended) on funding for Prop 8, Hollywood moguls are funding the lion’s share of the No on 8 campaign. Spielberg, among others, has contributed $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. I hesitate to even guess what Davis Geffen, a well-known gay Hollywood entertainment mogul with an estimated worth of over $2 billion,contributed the Prop 8.
…just to keep the balance sheet straight(no pun intended) on funding for Prop 8, Hollywood moguls are funding the lion’s share of the No on 8 campaign. Spielberg, among others, has contributed $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. I hesitate to even guess what Davis Geffen, a well-known gay Hollywood entertainment mogul with an estimated worth of over $2 billion,contributed the Prop 8.
Interesting that Prop 8 rather than the Presidential election is what is on people’s minds.
Stockton Record reports $60 million have been spent on the ballot measure, most in history.
Slight advantage on the No side in funding.
The money battle appears to be between Hollywood and the Mormons.
Interesting that Prop 8 rather than the Presidential election is what is on people’s minds.
Stockton Record reports $60 million have been spent on the ballot measure, most in history.
Slight advantage on the No side in funding.
The money battle appears to be between Hollywood and the Mormons.
Interesting that Prop 8 rather than the Presidential election is what is on people’s minds.
Stockton Record reports $60 million have been spent on the ballot measure, most in history.
Slight advantage on the No side in funding.
The money battle appears to be between Hollywood and the Mormons.
Interesting that Prop 8 rather than the Presidential election is what is on people’s minds.
Stockton Record reports $60 million have been spent on the ballot measure, most in history.
Slight advantage on the No side in funding.
The money battle appears to be between Hollywood and the Mormons.
Here are the latest polling numbers from Survey USA, look at the undecideds on Prop 11, those are likely to break on the no side I would guess…
Proposition 4 (abortion notification)
Yes: 40 percent
No: 46
Undecided: 14
Proposition 8 (gay marriage)
Yes: 47percent
No: 50
Undecided: 3
Proposition 11 (redistricting)
Yes: 39 percent
No: 26
Undecided: 35
The poll had a margin of error of 4 percent.
Obama: 60 percent
McCain: 36 percent
Here are the latest polling numbers from Survey USA, look at the undecideds on Prop 11, those are likely to break on the no side I would guess…
Proposition 4 (abortion notification)
Yes: 40 percent
No: 46
Undecided: 14
Proposition 8 (gay marriage)
Yes: 47percent
No: 50
Undecided: 3
Proposition 11 (redistricting)
Yes: 39 percent
No: 26
Undecided: 35
The poll had a margin of error of 4 percent.
Obama: 60 percent
McCain: 36 percent
Here are the latest polling numbers from Survey USA, look at the undecideds on Prop 11, those are likely to break on the no side I would guess…
Proposition 4 (abortion notification)
Yes: 40 percent
No: 46
Undecided: 14
Proposition 8 (gay marriage)
Yes: 47percent
No: 50
Undecided: 3
Proposition 11 (redistricting)
Yes: 39 percent
No: 26
Undecided: 35
The poll had a margin of error of 4 percent.
Obama: 60 percent
McCain: 36 percent
Here are the latest polling numbers from Survey USA, look at the undecideds on Prop 11, those are likely to break on the no side I would guess…
Proposition 4 (abortion notification)
Yes: 40 percent
No: 46
Undecided: 14
Proposition 8 (gay marriage)
Yes: 47percent
No: 50
Undecided: 3
Proposition 11 (redistricting)
Yes: 39 percent
No: 26
Undecided: 35
The poll had a margin of error of 4 percent.
Obama: 60 percent
McCain: 36 percent
I hesitate to even guess what Davis Geffen, a well-known gay Hollywood entertainment mogul with an estimated worth of over $2 billion,contributed the Prop 8.
You can look it up at opensecrets.org .
Geffen has given to Obama and various state level Democratic politicians (Boxer, Franken, Mark Udall, Patrick Kennedy, Chris Dodd et al), Emanuel’s PAC, and Feingold’s PAC, but I don’t see any donations to No on 8.
I hesitate to even guess what Davis Geffen, a well-known gay Hollywood entertainment mogul with an estimated worth of over $2 billion,contributed the Prop 8.
You can look it up at opensecrets.org .
Geffen has given to Obama and various state level Democratic politicians (Boxer, Franken, Mark Udall, Patrick Kennedy, Chris Dodd et al), Emanuel’s PAC, and Feingold’s PAC, but I don’t see any donations to No on 8.
I hesitate to even guess what Davis Geffen, a well-known gay Hollywood entertainment mogul with an estimated worth of over $2 billion,contributed the Prop 8.
You can look it up at opensecrets.org .
Geffen has given to Obama and various state level Democratic politicians (Boxer, Franken, Mark Udall, Patrick Kennedy, Chris Dodd et al), Emanuel’s PAC, and Feingold’s PAC, but I don’t see any donations to No on 8.
I hesitate to even guess what Davis Geffen, a well-known gay Hollywood entertainment mogul with an estimated worth of over $2 billion,contributed the Prop 8.
You can look it up at opensecrets.org .
Geffen has given to Obama and various state level Democratic politicians (Boxer, Franken, Mark Udall, Patrick Kennedy, Chris Dodd et al), Emanuel’s PAC, and Feingold’s PAC, but I don’t see any donations to No on 8.
I’m not sure if Opensecrets covers state stuff.
I looked up Geffen on SFGATE’s database:
SF GATE DBASE
He made two $50K contributions, one in August and one in September.
I’m not sure if Opensecrets covers state stuff.
I looked up Geffen on SFGATE’s database:
SF GATE DBASE
He made two $50K contributions, one in August and one in September.
I’m not sure if Opensecrets covers state stuff.
I looked up Geffen on SFGATE’s database:
SF GATE DBASE
He made two $50K contributions, one in August and one in September.
I’m not sure if Opensecrets covers state stuff.
I looked up Geffen on SFGATE’s database:
SF GATE DBASE
He made two $50K contributions, one in August and one in September.
In case some of you bloggers are supportive of the Republican Party cause and want to get the Republican Party’s reaction then you should consider attending the following event
Yolo County Republican Party (YCRP)
Election Night Victory Party
Sudwerk Bar and Grill Restaurant
Marsden Banquet Room
2001 2nd Street
Davis, CA 95616-5474
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
Doors open at 5:00 p.m. (PST)
The earliest election results from the Presidential Race will become available after 7:00 p.m. (EST)/4:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time PST also known as local California Time)
State and local election results will not be available until after 8:00 p.m.
The room is reserved for this use until 9:30 p.m. (PST) which is also the closing time for the establishment of which the attendees MIGHT be requested to leave at that time.
Access to the building of the venue may be denied as of 9:30 p.m. (PST) or later on this date.
No host food and drink is available.
Some free light beverages and refreshments may be available.
Please log on to the following websites for more information if it is desired:
About the sponsoring organization:
http://www.yologop.org
For information about the venue:
http://www.sudwerk.com
For directions to this event venue:
http://maps.google.com
In case some of you bloggers are supportive of the Republican Party cause and want to get the Republican Party’s reaction then you should consider attending the following event
Yolo County Republican Party (YCRP)
Election Night Victory Party
Sudwerk Bar and Grill Restaurant
Marsden Banquet Room
2001 2nd Street
Davis, CA 95616-5474
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
Doors open at 5:00 p.m. (PST)
The earliest election results from the Presidential Race will become available after 7:00 p.m. (EST)/4:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time PST also known as local California Time)
State and local election results will not be available until after 8:00 p.m.
The room is reserved for this use until 9:30 p.m. (PST) which is also the closing time for the establishment of which the attendees MIGHT be requested to leave at that time.
Access to the building of the venue may be denied as of 9:30 p.m. (PST) or later on this date.
No host food and drink is available.
Some free light beverages and refreshments may be available.
Please log on to the following websites for more information if it is desired:
About the sponsoring organization:
http://www.yologop.org
For information about the venue:
http://www.sudwerk.com
For directions to this event venue:
http://maps.google.com
In case some of you bloggers are supportive of the Republican Party cause and want to get the Republican Party’s reaction then you should consider attending the following event
Yolo County Republican Party (YCRP)
Election Night Victory Party
Sudwerk Bar and Grill Restaurant
Marsden Banquet Room
2001 2nd Street
Davis, CA 95616-5474
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
Doors open at 5:00 p.m. (PST)
The earliest election results from the Presidential Race will become available after 7:00 p.m. (EST)/4:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time PST also known as local California Time)
State and local election results will not be available until after 8:00 p.m.
The room is reserved for this use until 9:30 p.m. (PST) which is also the closing time for the establishment of which the attendees MIGHT be requested to leave at that time.
Access to the building of the venue may be denied as of 9:30 p.m. (PST) or later on this date.
No host food and drink is available.
Some free light beverages and refreshments may be available.
Please log on to the following websites for more information if it is desired:
About the sponsoring organization:
http://www.yologop.org
For information about the venue:
http://www.sudwerk.com
For directions to this event venue:
http://maps.google.com
In case some of you bloggers are supportive of the Republican Party cause and want to get the Republican Party’s reaction then you should consider attending the following event
Yolo County Republican Party (YCRP)
Election Night Victory Party
Sudwerk Bar and Grill Restaurant
Marsden Banquet Room
2001 2nd Street
Davis, CA 95616-5474
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
Doors open at 5:00 p.m. (PST)
The earliest election results from the Presidential Race will become available after 7:00 p.m. (EST)/4:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time PST also known as local California Time)
State and local election results will not be available until after 8:00 p.m.
The room is reserved for this use until 9:30 p.m. (PST) which is also the closing time for the establishment of which the attendees MIGHT be requested to leave at that time.
Access to the building of the venue may be denied as of 9:30 p.m. (PST) or later on this date.
No host food and drink is available.
Some free light beverages and refreshments may be available.
Please log on to the following websites for more information if it is desired:
About the sponsoring organization:
http://www.yologop.org
For information about the venue:
http://www.sudwerk.com
For directions to this event venue:
http://maps.google.com
The refusal of the CA Supreme Court majority to accept the legal weight of the traditional definition of marriage in their decision may add an ironic twist to the Mormon historic association with polygamy. Parsing the definition of marriage by refusing to consider the traditional weight of the definition as being between a man and a woman but then potentially having to declare,in some future polygamy case,that the traditional definition which limits the meaning of marriage to only two people does carry significant legal weight; this will be difficult to argue persuasively.
The refusal of the CA Supreme Court majority to accept the legal weight of the traditional definition of marriage in their decision may add an ironic twist to the Mormon historic association with polygamy. Parsing the definition of marriage by refusing to consider the traditional weight of the definition as being between a man and a woman but then potentially having to declare,in some future polygamy case,that the traditional definition which limits the meaning of marriage to only two people does carry significant legal weight; this will be difficult to argue persuasively.
The refusal of the CA Supreme Court majority to accept the legal weight of the traditional definition of marriage in their decision may add an ironic twist to the Mormon historic association with polygamy. Parsing the definition of marriage by refusing to consider the traditional weight of the definition as being between a man and a woman but then potentially having to declare,in some future polygamy case,that the traditional definition which limits the meaning of marriage to only two people does carry significant legal weight; this will be difficult to argue persuasively.
The refusal of the CA Supreme Court majority to accept the legal weight of the traditional definition of marriage in their decision may add an ironic twist to the Mormon historic association with polygamy. Parsing the definition of marriage by refusing to consider the traditional weight of the definition as being between a man and a woman but then potentially having to declare,in some future polygamy case,that the traditional definition which limits the meaning of marriage to only two people does carry significant legal weight; this will be difficult to argue persuasively.
Why do you think the traditional definition of marriage should carry legal weight?
Why do you think the traditional definition of marriage should carry legal weight?
Why do you think the traditional definition of marriage should carry legal weight?
Why do you think the traditional definition of marriage should carry legal weight?
“The refusal of the CA Supreme Court majority to accept the legal weight of the traditional definition of marriage in their decision may add an ironic twist to the Mormon historic association with polygamy.”
Should the tradition of segregation have been considered more heavily in Brown v. Education?
“The refusal of the CA Supreme Court majority to accept the legal weight of the traditional definition of marriage in their decision may add an ironic twist to the Mormon historic association with polygamy.”
Should the tradition of segregation have been considered more heavily in Brown v. Education?
“The refusal of the CA Supreme Court majority to accept the legal weight of the traditional definition of marriage in their decision may add an ironic twist to the Mormon historic association with polygamy.”
Should the tradition of segregation have been considered more heavily in Brown v. Education?
“The refusal of the CA Supreme Court majority to accept the legal weight of the traditional definition of marriage in their decision may add an ironic twist to the Mormon historic association with polygamy.”
Should the tradition of segregation have been considered more heavily in Brown v. Education?
Why does allowing same-sex couples to marry harm the “traditional definition of marriage”?
The Yes on 8’ers claim they want to protect traditional marriage, but never explain how it hurts heterosexual marriages for two same-sex people to get married.
Same-sex marriage has about the same effect on “traditional” marriages that it has on the weather. None.
Why does allowing same-sex couples to marry harm the “traditional definition of marriage”?
The Yes on 8’ers claim they want to protect traditional marriage, but never explain how it hurts heterosexual marriages for two same-sex people to get married.
Same-sex marriage has about the same effect on “traditional” marriages that it has on the weather. None.
Why does allowing same-sex couples to marry harm the “traditional definition of marriage”?
The Yes on 8’ers claim they want to protect traditional marriage, but never explain how it hurts heterosexual marriages for two same-sex people to get married.
Same-sex marriage has about the same effect on “traditional” marriages that it has on the weather. None.
Why does allowing same-sex couples to marry harm the “traditional definition of marriage”?
The Yes on 8’ers claim they want to protect traditional marriage, but never explain how it hurts heterosexual marriages for two same-sex people to get married.
Same-sex marriage has about the same effect on “traditional” marriages that it has on the weather. None.
“He made two $50K contributions, one in August and one in September.”
I’ll bet ya that we will see a much larger contribution from Geffen which was made following Yes on 8’s lead in the polls. This won’t be publicly reported until after the election.
“He made two $50K contributions, one in August and one in September.”
I’ll bet ya that we will see a much larger contribution from Geffen which was made following Yes on 8’s lead in the polls. This won’t be publicly reported until after the election.
“He made two $50K contributions, one in August and one in September.”
I’ll bet ya that we will see a much larger contribution from Geffen which was made following Yes on 8’s lead in the polls. This won’t be publicly reported until after the election.
“He made two $50K contributions, one in August and one in September.”
I’ll bet ya that we will see a much larger contribution from Geffen which was made following Yes on 8’s lead in the polls. This won’t be publicly reported until after the election.
A bit of trivia on the U.S. Senate races: did you know that Mark Udall, who will win in Colorado, and his first cousin Tom Udall, who will win in New Mexico, are second cousins of Senator Gordon Smith, who will lose in Oregon?
Gordon Smith’s brother, Milan Smith, Jr, is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. And another cousin, David Udall, is a Superior Court Judge in Phoenix.
The Udall political dynasty descends from David King Udall, who was a Mormon polygamist and in Arizona’s territorial legislature in the 1800s. When DK Udall was jailed for perjury — involving a case with Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Romney — Udall was supposedly bailed out of jail by Baron Goldwasser, father of Sen. Barry Goldwater. (Wikipedia says the bail-payer was Barry’s uncle. However, at Goldwater’s funeral, a cousin of the senator said the bail money came from Barry’s father.)
A bit of trivia on the U.S. Senate races: did you know that Mark Udall, who will win in Colorado, and his first cousin Tom Udall, who will win in New Mexico, are second cousins of Senator Gordon Smith, who will lose in Oregon?
Gordon Smith’s brother, Milan Smith, Jr, is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. And another cousin, David Udall, is a Superior Court Judge in Phoenix.
The Udall political dynasty descends from David King Udall, who was a Mormon polygamist and in Arizona’s territorial legislature in the 1800s. When DK Udall was jailed for perjury — involving a case with Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Romney — Udall was supposedly bailed out of jail by Baron Goldwasser, father of Sen. Barry Goldwater. (Wikipedia says the bail-payer was Barry’s uncle. However, at Goldwater’s funeral, a cousin of the senator said the bail money came from Barry’s father.)
A bit of trivia on the U.S. Senate races: did you know that Mark Udall, who will win in Colorado, and his first cousin Tom Udall, who will win in New Mexico, are second cousins of Senator Gordon Smith, who will lose in Oregon?
Gordon Smith’s brother, Milan Smith, Jr, is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. And another cousin, David Udall, is a Superior Court Judge in Phoenix.
The Udall political dynasty descends from David King Udall, who was a Mormon polygamist and in Arizona’s territorial legislature in the 1800s. When DK Udall was jailed for perjury — involving a case with Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Romney — Udall was supposedly bailed out of jail by Baron Goldwasser, father of Sen. Barry Goldwater. (Wikipedia says the bail-payer was Barry’s uncle. However, at Goldwater’s funeral, a cousin of the senator said the bail money came from Barry’s father.)
A bit of trivia on the U.S. Senate races: did you know that Mark Udall, who will win in Colorado, and his first cousin Tom Udall, who will win in New Mexico, are second cousins of Senator Gordon Smith, who will lose in Oregon?
Gordon Smith’s brother, Milan Smith, Jr, is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. And another cousin, David Udall, is a Superior Court Judge in Phoenix.
The Udall political dynasty descends from David King Udall, who was a Mormon polygamist and in Arizona’s territorial legislature in the 1800s. When DK Udall was jailed for perjury — involving a case with Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Romney — Udall was supposedly bailed out of jail by Baron Goldwasser, father of Sen. Barry Goldwater. (Wikipedia says the bail-payer was Barry’s uncle. However, at Goldwater’s funeral, a cousin of the senator said the bail money came from Barry’s father.)
“Should the tradition of segregation have been considered more heavily in Brown v. Education?
The “tradition” of segregation violated substantive civil rights. This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.
“Should the tradition of segregation have been considered more heavily in Brown v. Education?
The “tradition” of segregation violated substantive civil rights. This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.
“Should the tradition of segregation have been considered more heavily in Brown v. Education?
The “tradition” of segregation violated substantive civil rights. This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.
“Should the tradition of segregation have been considered more heavily in Brown v. Education?
The “tradition” of segregation violated substantive civil rights. This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.
“This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.”
That’s really not clear, there are lot of places that do not recognize civil unions and thus those are treated as second class citizens.
I take your main objection is to the expansion of marriage to include same sex couples, what about the expansion of marriage to include civil ceremonies in the past–didn’t that expand the traditional definition of marriage which was in the guise of religion? Should we separate state recognized marriage which could include a same sex component from religion defined marriage, that would seem to fix your primary objections.
“This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.”
That’s really not clear, there are lot of places that do not recognize civil unions and thus those are treated as second class citizens.
I take your main objection is to the expansion of marriage to include same sex couples, what about the expansion of marriage to include civil ceremonies in the past–didn’t that expand the traditional definition of marriage which was in the guise of religion? Should we separate state recognized marriage which could include a same sex component from religion defined marriage, that would seem to fix your primary objections.
“This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.”
That’s really not clear, there are lot of places that do not recognize civil unions and thus those are treated as second class citizens.
I take your main objection is to the expansion of marriage to include same sex couples, what about the expansion of marriage to include civil ceremonies in the past–didn’t that expand the traditional definition of marriage which was in the guise of religion? Should we separate state recognized marriage which could include a same sex component from religion defined marriage, that would seem to fix your primary objections.
“This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.”
That’s really not clear, there are lot of places that do not recognize civil unions and thus those are treated as second class citizens.
I take your main objection is to the expansion of marriage to include same sex couples, what about the expansion of marriage to include civil ceremonies in the past–didn’t that expand the traditional definition of marriage which was in the guise of religion? Should we separate state recognized marriage which could include a same sex component from religion defined marriage, that would seem to fix your primary objections.
“Why do you think the traditional definition of marriage should carry legal weight?”
Common(traditional) definitions are what bind a society together. They evolve within the society; courts should be reluctant to take it upon themselves to impose new societal definitions. We only have to witness the societal “heat” of the current Prop 8 campaign to understand the danger when a majority of 1(4-3) of CA supreme court judges overreach their role and dismiss the “weight of tradition” without adequately defining how substantive rights were being violated to an extent that their decision was necessary.
“Why do you think the traditional definition of marriage should carry legal weight?”
Common(traditional) definitions are what bind a society together. They evolve within the society; courts should be reluctant to take it upon themselves to impose new societal definitions. We only have to witness the societal “heat” of the current Prop 8 campaign to understand the danger when a majority of 1(4-3) of CA supreme court judges overreach their role and dismiss the “weight of tradition” without adequately defining how substantive rights were being violated to an extent that their decision was necessary.
“Why do you think the traditional definition of marriage should carry legal weight?”
Common(traditional) definitions are what bind a society together. They evolve within the society; courts should be reluctant to take it upon themselves to impose new societal definitions. We only have to witness the societal “heat” of the current Prop 8 campaign to understand the danger when a majority of 1(4-3) of CA supreme court judges overreach their role and dismiss the “weight of tradition” without adequately defining how substantive rights were being violated to an extent that their decision was necessary.
“Why do you think the traditional definition of marriage should carry legal weight?”
Common(traditional) definitions are what bind a society together. They evolve within the society; courts should be reluctant to take it upon themselves to impose new societal definitions. We only have to witness the societal “heat” of the current Prop 8 campaign to understand the danger when a majority of 1(4-3) of CA supreme court judges overreach their role and dismiss the “weight of tradition” without adequately defining how substantive rights were being violated to an extent that their decision was necessary.
That’s an interesting answer but it ignores the fact that even language is not set in stone, but rather fluid. Words change meaning over time. A society changes social mores over time and if you do not adapt legal definitions to keep up with the times, you end up having a stale society. Our constitution and governance has lasted so long because of its fluidity.
That’s an interesting answer but it ignores the fact that even language is not set in stone, but rather fluid. Words change meaning over time. A society changes social mores over time and if you do not adapt legal definitions to keep up with the times, you end up having a stale society. Our constitution and governance has lasted so long because of its fluidity.
That’s an interesting answer but it ignores the fact that even language is not set in stone, but rather fluid. Words change meaning over time. A society changes social mores over time and if you do not adapt legal definitions to keep up with the times, you end up having a stale society. Our constitution and governance has lasted so long because of its fluidity.
That’s an interesting answer but it ignores the fact that even language is not set in stone, but rather fluid. Words change meaning over time. A society changes social mores over time and if you do not adapt legal definitions to keep up with the times, you end up having a stale society. Our constitution and governance has lasted so long because of its fluidity.
“The “tradition” of segregation violated substantive civil rights. This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.”
I still don’t get why Prop. 8 proponents insist that civil unions offer the same rights as marriage. The obvious next counter-response is, “if they offer the same rights, what’s the problem with just having marriage for all instead of heterosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions?”
You almost seem to suggest that having a civil union status is a firewall against changing tradition too quickly.
“We only have to witness the societal “heat” of the current Prop 8 campaign to understand the danger when a majority of 1(4-3) of CA supreme court judges overreach their role and dismiss the “weight of tradition” without adequately defining how substantive rights were being violated to an extent that their decision was necessary.”
It seems like the same argument that could have been made about the Warren court for Brown v. BOE.
“The “tradition” of segregation violated substantive civil rights. This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.”
I still don’t get why Prop. 8 proponents insist that civil unions offer the same rights as marriage. The obvious next counter-response is, “if they offer the same rights, what’s the problem with just having marriage for all instead of heterosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions?”
You almost seem to suggest that having a civil union status is a firewall against changing tradition too quickly.
“We only have to witness the societal “heat” of the current Prop 8 campaign to understand the danger when a majority of 1(4-3) of CA supreme court judges overreach their role and dismiss the “weight of tradition” without adequately defining how substantive rights were being violated to an extent that their decision was necessary.”
It seems like the same argument that could have been made about the Warren court for Brown v. BOE.
“The “tradition” of segregation violated substantive civil rights. This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.”
I still don’t get why Prop. 8 proponents insist that civil unions offer the same rights as marriage. The obvious next counter-response is, “if they offer the same rights, what’s the problem with just having marriage for all instead of heterosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions?”
You almost seem to suggest that having a civil union status is a firewall against changing tradition too quickly.
“We only have to witness the societal “heat” of the current Prop 8 campaign to understand the danger when a majority of 1(4-3) of CA supreme court judges overreach their role and dismiss the “weight of tradition” without adequately defining how substantive rights were being violated to an extent that their decision was necessary.”
It seems like the same argument that could have been made about the Warren court for Brown v. BOE.
“The “tradition” of segregation violated substantive civil rights. This is not the case when considering the current definition of marriage with concurrent full and equal civil-union rights.”
I still don’t get why Prop. 8 proponents insist that civil unions offer the same rights as marriage. The obvious next counter-response is, “if they offer the same rights, what’s the problem with just having marriage for all instead of heterosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions?”
You almost seem to suggest that having a civil union status is a firewall against changing tradition too quickly.
“We only have to witness the societal “heat” of the current Prop 8 campaign to understand the danger when a majority of 1(4-3) of CA supreme court judges overreach their role and dismiss the “weight of tradition” without adequately defining how substantive rights were being violated to an extent that their decision was necessary.”
It seems like the same argument that could have been made about the Warren court for Brown v. BOE.
“Should we separate state recognized marriage which could include a same sex component from religion defined marriage, that would seem to fix your primary objections.”
The State’s vocabulary can delete the term marriage and have the term civil-union for all state laws and documents. This was the alternative legal recommendation of the CA Supreme Court in their decision. Societies that have actively promoted the elimination of religion (former Soviet Union and Republican Spain in the 30’s come to mind) did abandon the term marriage in favor of something like civil-union. My limited personal experience is that the gay community strongly rejects the idea of “equality” being achieved by the State abandoning the term “marriage in favor of the term “civil-union” for all.
“Should we separate state recognized marriage which could include a same sex component from religion defined marriage, that would seem to fix your primary objections.”
The State’s vocabulary can delete the term marriage and have the term civil-union for all state laws and documents. This was the alternative legal recommendation of the CA Supreme Court in their decision. Societies that have actively promoted the elimination of religion (former Soviet Union and Republican Spain in the 30’s come to mind) did abandon the term marriage in favor of something like civil-union. My limited personal experience is that the gay community strongly rejects the idea of “equality” being achieved by the State abandoning the term “marriage in favor of the term “civil-union” for all.
“Should we separate state recognized marriage which could include a same sex component from religion defined marriage, that would seem to fix your primary objections.”
The State’s vocabulary can delete the term marriage and have the term civil-union for all state laws and documents. This was the alternative legal recommendation of the CA Supreme Court in their decision. Societies that have actively promoted the elimination of religion (former Soviet Union and Republican Spain in the 30’s come to mind) did abandon the term marriage in favor of something like civil-union. My limited personal experience is that the gay community strongly rejects the idea of “equality” being achieved by the State abandoning the term “marriage in favor of the term “civil-union” for all.
“Should we separate state recognized marriage which could include a same sex component from religion defined marriage, that would seem to fix your primary objections.”
The State’s vocabulary can delete the term marriage and have the term civil-union for all state laws and documents. This was the alternative legal recommendation of the CA Supreme Court in their decision. Societies that have actively promoted the elimination of religion (former Soviet Union and Republican Spain in the 30’s come to mind) did abandon the term marriage in favor of something like civil-union. My limited personal experience is that the gay community strongly rejects the idea of “equality” being achieved by the State abandoning the term “marriage in favor of the term “civil-union” for all.
“if they offer the same rights, what’s the problem with just having marriage for all instead of heterosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions?”
This is a problem when a near majority(or more) of Ca voters define marriage and civil-unions as two distinguishable things and that this distinction is important in their world-view.
“You almost seem to suggest that having a civil union status is a firewall against changing tradition too quickly.”
Not so. It is the court’s intervention in this process of change that I am deriding. civil-union status can evolve just like other societal traditions. It is just as likely(perhaps more so) that society’s values will evolve to hold the terms “civil-union” and “marriage” as of equal societal acceptance while still having two terms to describe distinguishable differences.
“if they offer the same rights, what’s the problem with just having marriage for all instead of heterosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions?”
This is a problem when a near majority(or more) of Ca voters define marriage and civil-unions as two distinguishable things and that this distinction is important in their world-view.
“You almost seem to suggest that having a civil union status is a firewall against changing tradition too quickly.”
Not so. It is the court’s intervention in this process of change that I am deriding. civil-union status can evolve just like other societal traditions. It is just as likely(perhaps more so) that society’s values will evolve to hold the terms “civil-union” and “marriage” as of equal societal acceptance while still having two terms to describe distinguishable differences.
“if they offer the same rights, what’s the problem with just having marriage for all instead of heterosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions?”
This is a problem when a near majority(or more) of Ca voters define marriage and civil-unions as two distinguishable things and that this distinction is important in their world-view.
“You almost seem to suggest that having a civil union status is a firewall against changing tradition too quickly.”
Not so. It is the court’s intervention in this process of change that I am deriding. civil-union status can evolve just like other societal traditions. It is just as likely(perhaps more so) that society’s values will evolve to hold the terms “civil-union” and “marriage” as of equal societal acceptance while still having two terms to describe distinguishable differences.
“if they offer the same rights, what’s the problem with just having marriage for all instead of heterosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions?”
This is a problem when a near majority(or more) of Ca voters define marriage and civil-unions as two distinguishable things and that this distinction is important in their world-view.
“You almost seem to suggest that having a civil union status is a firewall against changing tradition too quickly.”
Not so. It is the court’s intervention in this process of change that I am deriding. civil-union status can evolve just like other societal traditions. It is just as likely(perhaps more so) that society’s values will evolve to hold the terms “civil-union” and “marriage” as of equal societal acceptance while still having two terms to describe distinguishable differences.
“It seems like the same argument that could have been made about the Warren court for Brown v. BOE.”
My understanding of Brown V. BOE was that, in fact,the Supreme Court intervened because they found that there were violations of substantive civil rights.
“It seems like the same argument that could have been made about the Warren court for Brown v. BOE.”
My understanding of Brown V. BOE was that, in fact,the Supreme Court intervened because they found that there were violations of substantive civil rights.
“It seems like the same argument that could have been made about the Warren court for Brown v. BOE.”
My understanding of Brown V. BOE was that, in fact,the Supreme Court intervened because they found that there were violations of substantive civil rights.
“It seems like the same argument that could have been made about the Warren court for Brown v. BOE.”
My understanding of Brown V. BOE was that, in fact,the Supreme Court intervened because they found that there were violations of substantive civil rights.
Mormons against gays…wonder what the Scientologists are pushing out of the propositions?
Mormons against gays…wonder what the Scientologists are pushing out of the propositions?
Mormons against gays…wonder what the Scientologists are pushing out of the propositions?
Mormons against gays…wonder what the Scientologists are pushing out of the propositions?
In my opinion this is a really ignorant statement:
“cafeteria staff who should already know how to cook”
Cafeteria in general are not hired because of their ability to cook. They generally serve pre-prepared meals. So there should be no such expectation.
The district has two choice–hire cooks or train their existing staff. Guess which one is more expensive? Hiring cooks.
Please actually think Ms. Crunch Lunch before you criticize, it’s becoming embarrassing.
In my opinion this is a really ignorant statement:
“cafeteria staff who should already know how to cook”
Cafeteria in general are not hired because of their ability to cook. They generally serve pre-prepared meals. So there should be no such expectation.
The district has two choice–hire cooks or train their existing staff. Guess which one is more expensive? Hiring cooks.
Please actually think Ms. Crunch Lunch before you criticize, it’s becoming embarrassing.
In my opinion this is a really ignorant statement:
“cafeteria staff who should already know how to cook”
Cafeteria in general are not hired because of their ability to cook. They generally serve pre-prepared meals. So there should be no such expectation.
The district has two choice–hire cooks or train their existing staff. Guess which one is more expensive? Hiring cooks.
Please actually think Ms. Crunch Lunch before you criticize, it’s becoming embarrassing.
In my opinion this is a really ignorant statement:
“cafeteria staff who should already know how to cook”
Cafeteria in general are not hired because of their ability to cook. They generally serve pre-prepared meals. So there should be no such expectation.
The district has two choice–hire cooks or train their existing staff. Guess which one is more expensive? Hiring cooks.
Please actually think Ms. Crunch Lunch before you criticize, it’s becoming embarrassing.
To: Rich-
that’s some good So. West trivia you put up. The inherent religion of Senator Harry Reid, a native of Searchlight, Nevada. He is a Mormon.
Did you know that Barry Goldwater sported a tattoo?
To: Rich-
that’s some good So. West trivia you put up. The inherent religion of Senator Harry Reid, a native of Searchlight, Nevada. He is a Mormon.
Did you know that Barry Goldwater sported a tattoo?
To: Rich-
that’s some good So. West trivia you put up. The inherent religion of Senator Harry Reid, a native of Searchlight, Nevada. He is a Mormon.
Did you know that Barry Goldwater sported a tattoo?
To: Rich-
that’s some good So. West trivia you put up. The inherent religion of Senator Harry Reid, a native of Searchlight, Nevada. He is a Mormon.
Did you know that Barry Goldwater sported a tattoo?
Excellent! The old familiar comment form is back!
Excellent! The old familiar comment form is back!
Excellent! The old familiar comment form is back!
Excellent! The old familiar comment form is back!
“Did you know that Barry Goldwater sported a tattoo?”
I did not know that. What did he have on it?
As you probably know, Goldwater was by heritage half-Jewish, though by faith he was a Christian. Jews, by tradition, are not supposed to get tattoos. While I don’t live by the Mosaic Law, I am happy to not mark my skin with ink.
Getting back to the Mormons… I was wondering if the spread the LDS faith from Utah into its neighboring states affected the politics of those places? Is the conservative nature of politics in western Colorado, rural Nevada, Idaho and northern Arizona conservative because those places have such large Mormon populations? (I realize, of course, that not all Mormons are political conservatives; notably Harry Reid and many of the Udalls.*)
Or is it the case that those places, being mostly white and rural, regardless of the religious denominations which populate them, are naturally drawn to more conservative political traditions?
I suppose it is a mix of the two. However, I recall the time when Idaho produced liberal politicians like Frank Church. Maybe he was just an exception and the growth of Latter Day Saints in that region does not explain why conservatives dominate?
———
* Not all of the famous Udalls, today, are Mormons. Following marriage outside of the LDS church, some of them, including Senator-elect Mark Udall, are Protestants.
“Did you know that Barry Goldwater sported a tattoo?”
I did not know that. What did he have on it?
As you probably know, Goldwater was by heritage half-Jewish, though by faith he was a Christian. Jews, by tradition, are not supposed to get tattoos. While I don’t live by the Mosaic Law, I am happy to not mark my skin with ink.
Getting back to the Mormons… I was wondering if the spread the LDS faith from Utah into its neighboring states affected the politics of those places? Is the conservative nature of politics in western Colorado, rural Nevada, Idaho and northern Arizona conservative because those places have such large Mormon populations? (I realize, of course, that not all Mormons are political conservatives; notably Harry Reid and many of the Udalls.*)
Or is it the case that those places, being mostly white and rural, regardless of the religious denominations which populate them, are naturally drawn to more conservative political traditions?
I suppose it is a mix of the two. However, I recall the time when Idaho produced liberal politicians like Frank Church. Maybe he was just an exception and the growth of Latter Day Saints in that region does not explain why conservatives dominate?
———
* Not all of the famous Udalls, today, are Mormons. Following marriage outside of the LDS church, some of them, including Senator-elect Mark Udall, are Protestants.
“Did you know that Barry Goldwater sported a tattoo?”
I did not know that. What did he have on it?
As you probably know, Goldwater was by heritage half-Jewish, though by faith he was a Christian. Jews, by tradition, are not supposed to get tattoos. While I don’t live by the Mosaic Law, I am happy to not mark my skin with ink.
Getting back to the Mormons… I was wondering if the spread the LDS faith from Utah into its neighboring states affected the politics of those places? Is the conservative nature of politics in western Colorado, rural Nevada, Idaho and northern Arizona conservative because those places have such large Mormon populations? (I realize, of course, that not all Mormons are political conservatives; notably Harry Reid and many of the Udalls.*)
Or is it the case that those places, being mostly white and rural, regardless of the religious denominations which populate them, are naturally drawn to more conservative political traditions?
I suppose it is a mix of the two. However, I recall the time when Idaho produced liberal politicians like Frank Church. Maybe he was just an exception and the growth of Latter Day Saints in that region does not explain why conservatives dominate?
———
* Not all of the famous Udalls, today, are Mormons. Following marriage outside of the LDS church, some of them, including Senator-elect Mark Udall, are Protestants.
“Did you know that Barry Goldwater sported a tattoo?”
I did not know that. What did he have on it?
As you probably know, Goldwater was by heritage half-Jewish, though by faith he was a Christian. Jews, by tradition, are not supposed to get tattoos. While I don’t live by the Mosaic Law, I am happy to not mark my skin with ink.
Getting back to the Mormons… I was wondering if the spread the LDS faith from Utah into its neighboring states affected the politics of those places? Is the conservative nature of politics in western Colorado, rural Nevada, Idaho and northern Arizona conservative because those places have such large Mormon populations? (I realize, of course, that not all Mormons are political conservatives; notably Harry Reid and many of the Udalls.*)
Or is it the case that those places, being mostly white and rural, regardless of the religious denominations which populate them, are naturally drawn to more conservative political traditions?
I suppose it is a mix of the two. However, I recall the time when Idaho produced liberal politicians like Frank Church. Maybe he was just an exception and the growth of Latter Day Saints in that region does not explain why conservatives dominate?
———
* Not all of the famous Udalls, today, are Mormons. Following marriage outside of the LDS church, some of them, including Senator-elect Mark Udall, are Protestants.