Comments on:

By: animist

animist — Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:57:07 +0000

In reply to aureth.

Here’s an interesting article on that…
“Keyes No Laughing Matter”
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Pacific News Service. Posted August 12, 2004.
http://alternet.org/columnists/story/19546/

By: foxish

foxish — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:36:05 +0000

In many ways, I’m glad I left. It’s a fairly backwater state, even in the more metropolitan regions. I can’t vouch for St. Louis–I lived out west–but Kansas City still picks up a lot of the relgi-conservatism from Kansas, and it grows a lot stronger as you get into the smaller towns. Seeing as I was in a village of 2000, I can attest that the bible belt squeezes pretty tight down there.

By: fuzzytoedcollie

fuzzytoedcollie — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:29:34 +0000

Best wishes for the Abbott interview next Tuesday!
(And thanks for the heads-up on Firefox–I’m really liking that browser, as is my Dad!)

By: ramalion

ramalion — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:27:37 +0000

The US tends to be the last of the first world countries to adopt any big social change (like banning slavery…giving women the right to vote…’equal’ treatment no matter skin color). I imagine the US will be just the same on this issue too. Perhaps we will see it in our life time as the conservative in power now start to pass the government off to a younger generation.
Seriously…Missouri makes it too easy to ammend their constitution. All that had to be done was passing it with simple majorty in both houses, then a simple majority of voters voting on the issue passes it.
In Tennessee, if I remmeber correctly from the issue on the lottery from a few years back, a special session of the state legislature had to be called not once…but twice and by different sessions to even get the messure on the ballot. Then a super majority of the voters had to approve the measure. Oh…and the number was based on the previous election for governor. When Tennessee approved the lottery, there was another issue on the ballot, it got the super majorty based on the number of voters at that time, but didn’t get enough votes based on the last governor election so it failed.

By: woofwoofarf

woofwoofarf — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 06:53:48 +0000

In reply to bloodwolves. I probably won't reciprocate. My feelings on the matter are spelled out on my info page. Nothing personal, dude.

By: aureth

aureth — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 06:51:46 +0000

Yeah. Alan Keyes. Let’s see…He’s lost four races (two Senate, and two Republican presidential nominations). He’s never lived in Illinois and he doesn’t currently live in Illinois. And suddenly, with Barak Obama in the race, Alan Keyes is the ‘best qualified’ candidate. How convenient for them to come up with a black, conservative candidate at this very moment.
What a load of horse hockey. I didn’t think it was possible for my opinion of the Illinois GOP to drop even further after the George Ryan scandals and their race to defend him, but it has.

By: woofwoofarf

woofwoofarf — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 06:51:45 +0000

In reply to goodluckfox. You make a good point on the trickle-down effect of democracy - fair enough. And yeah, patience will win out, I'm certain. If you had told me we would have the advances in rights that we have now just five years ago, I'm not sure I would have belived you. One nitpick: The U. S. Constitution and the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court do trump state constitutions, as shown in Rover vs. Evans in Colorado. And yeah, it's Missouri. I tend to forget that with the exception of the metro areas it's basically North Arkansas. I would note the only place in Missouri that the No votes had a majority was St. Louis.

By: bloodwolves

bloodwolves — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 06:34:57 +0000

Greetings,names bloodwolves and i put your username on my friends list.I hope you join my friends list.I hope i fit your qualificatons.
Thank you,

By: goodluckfox

goodluckfox — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 06:32:45 +0000

Let me preface this by saying I’m pro gay marraige, although I’m straight myself. I don’t want anybody getting the wrong idea about me.
You make a good point about the civil rights aspect of it. I think a ban on gay marraige does violate the spirit, and probably the letter, of the “equal protection under the law” clause. This is the reason that we have checks and balances; the Missouri state supreme court can rule a law unconstitutional (the Missouri state constitution that is).
If it’s the constitution itself which is being amended, then that’s pretty much it. I don’t know if even the US Supreme Court can overturn part of a State constitution.
The thing is that the electorate ultimately DOES have a say in EVERYTHING. We directly elect our mayors, state legislators, county supervisors, city council/board of alderpersons, and in many cases even our judges (and in the cases where they’re appointed, we elect the people that appoint them).
That’s democracy. Warts and all. At least it came up for a vote, rather than being a fiat proclamation from on high. I can disagree with it, I may even be able to point out where my fellow citizens are wrong wrong WRONG… but if a majority of the voters decide to be poop heads, I have lost. For the time being.
Democracy is a very fluid thing. It changes with the times, although not as swiftly as we would like, but always without bloodshed and chaos. Remember the Election 2000 debacle? Nobody *died*. Social order is maintained. Gay marraige in Missouri (c’mon, what’d you expect out of Missouri???) is a temporary casualty of the system that makes our changing society possible.
Just wait. Times will change.
Loxley
(In Mississippi fwiw)