+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Go vote. (/showthread.php?tid=5026)
- Apoc - 11-07-2006
Evan Wrote:..aaand all the democrats cards come out.
Accusations of voter intimidation, racisim, bad polling equipment, voter suppression, etc etc. Every fucking year.
I'm not a Democrat and don't really support the party but ever wonder if maybe there's some truth to at least some of the stories? I mean, VRWC aside, you gotta at least acknowledge that there are definite issues we (America) should not be having. You don't believe that both parties would try to supress votes? Repubs may get more attention but I think both parties are probably guilty.
- Maengelito - 11-07-2006
G.Irish Wrote:How does the president affect gas prices? Seriously? Does he bargain for lower prices or what? I honestly didn't understand how people were mad at Bush for higher gas prices earlier this year. What did he do (or not do) to bring that on?
Does anyone really know what role the president plays (if any) in gas prices?
most of our oil comes from foreign suppliers. i dont think the president has much of a role directly in the price of gas. i imagine it'd have more to do with him saying how much he wants to import. then again, thats probably more of a economic decision than a political decision.
and btw, gay marriage in this state is and has been illegal for quite some time. the thing on the ballot today is voting to amend it so its worded differently.
- Andy - 11-07-2006
Maengelito Wrote:and btw, gay marriage in this state is and has been illegal for quite some time. the thing on the ballot today is voting to amend it so its worded differently.
Gay marriage is illegal. The thing on the ballot today is a tool to lure Christian conservatives to the polls. It's wording can, however, affect common law marriages and eleminates the future possibility of civil unions.
I say let the gays have access to the failed hetero institution of marriage.
- CaptainHenreh - 11-07-2006
Andy Wrote:Maengelito Wrote:and btw, gay marriage in this state is and has been illegal for quite some time. the thing on the ballot today is voting to amend it so its worded differently.
Gay marriage is illegal. The thing on the ballot today is a tool to lure Christian conservatives to the polls. It's wording can, however, affect common law marriages and eleminates the future possibility of civil unions.
I say let the gays have access to the failed hetero institution of marriage.
I call bullshit. Back your words up with facts.
- Andy - 11-07-2006
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Andy Wrote:Maengelito Wrote:and btw, gay marriage in this state is and has been illegal for quite some time. the thing on the ballot today is voting to amend it so its worded differently.
Gay marriage is illegal. The thing on the ballot today is a tool to lure Christian conservatives to the polls. It's wording can, however, affect common law marriages and eleminates the future possibility of civil unions.
I say let the gays have access to the failed hetero institution of marriage.
I call bullshit. Back your words up with facts.
Which part? Failing institution. Gay marriage actually being illegal or it's effect on the common law marriages?
- CaptainHenreh - 11-07-2006
Andy Wrote:Which part? Failing institution. Gay marriage actually being illegal or it's effect on the common law marriages?
The "marriage amendment" is designed to keep gay marriage illegal. If it's in the constitution, it can't be struck down as unconstitutional. Anything else is just conjecture on your part. It's the wording of the law, put into the constitution.
- Andy - 11-07-2006
From the ballot:
Quote:Shall Article 1 (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state "That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. The Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage?"
From the Associated press with regard to Ohio same sex marriage ban that VA took almost word for word.
Quote:When Ohio voters amended their constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage in the state, did they intend to end a consistent recent history of applying the state's domestic violence law to non-marital households? Proponents of the amendment disclaimed any such intention, and before last week all of the Ohio intermediate appellate courts to consider the issue had agreed that the law was still available to prosecute abusive live-in boyfriends and girl-friends (without regard to whether it was a same-sex or opposite-sex relationship at issue, although most of the cases involve the abusive boyfriends of women).
Now a dissenting voice is heard, from the 2nd District Court of Appeal, in State v. Ward, 2006-Ohio-1407 (March 24, 2006). Writing for a 2-1 majority, Judge Mike Fain said that applying the domestic violence law to a case involving unmarried cohabitants would violate the "Defense of Marriage Amendment" by recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the effect of marriage," quoting the language of the amendment. In dissent, Judge Mary E. Donovan insists that the other courts of appeal have gotten it right: prosecuting somebody for violence against a cohabiting partner does not recognize or create a "legal status," it merely recognizes that violence within the context of a household presents special issues for the criminal justice system that are addressed by a particular statute that has been consistently construed by Ohio courts to apply without regard to the marital status of the cohabitants.
A split having opened up, the question requires resolution by the Ohio Supreme Court, assuming the prosecuting attorney in Xenia, William F. Schenck, decides to take the case further.
- WRXtranceformed - 11-07-2006
Just got back from voting. I did my part... if the state falls apart I take no responsibility!!!! :lol:
- CaptainHenreh - 11-07-2006
Andy, I would like to point out two things.
#1: The state law regarding marraige is worded nearly exactly like the amendment, and yet abusive boyfriends still get thrown in jail.
AND
#2: Domestic violence is *not* one of the things you mentioned in your post.
- Andy - 11-07-2006
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Andy, I would like to point out two things.
#1: The state law regarding marraige is worded nearly exactly like the amendment, and yet abusive boyfriends still get thrown in jail.
AND
#2: Domestic violence is *not* one of the things you mentioned in your post.
Neither of us are lawyers and VA took Ohio's admendment so am I going out on a branch to say the same interpretation can't be arrived at?
Domestic violence with regard to common law marriages is what is being affected. You can't beat your wife but if she's your live in GF, then it's fair
game is what the Ohio court said. Well not that extreme, but you get the hyperbole.
- G.Irish - 11-07-2006
WRXtranceformed Wrote:Just got back from voting. I did my part... if the state falls apart I take no responsibility!!!! :lol:Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
- WRXtranceformed - 11-07-2006
My main concern this election was vanilla vs. chocolate Frostys ™
- Evan - 11-07-2006
Im seeing a lot of pissed conservatives (and moderate conservatives) out there, who are voting libertarian or staying home. (ironic)
Which makes a lot of sense, considering the conservative show of force in 2004 and 2002. (as opposed to the media trying to spin it as a nationwide liberal movement)
I wonder if Bush would have lost the presidential election if this would have actually let the Repubs keep the house?
And which is more important?
food for thought.
I am scared about what the Dems and San Fran liberal House speaker Pelosi are going to do. They are already talking about things that reek of revenge and power grabbing.
- Evan - 11-07-2006
WRXtranceformed Wrote:My main concern this election was vanilla vs. chocolate Frostys ™that didnt even make it past the primaries. OG Frosty in a landslide victory.
(he had the chocolate vote)
- Apoc - 11-07-2006
Evan Wrote:WRXtranceformed Wrote:My main concern this election was vanilla vs. chocolate Frostys ™that didnt even make it past the primaries. OG Frosty in a landslide victory.
(he had the chocolate vote)
lol... classic.
- Feersty - 11-07-2006
I voted...interested to see what happens at 7pm EST.
- Maengelito - 11-07-2006
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Andy Wrote:Which part? Failing institution. Gay marriage actually being illegal or it's effect on the common law marriages?
The "marriage amendment" is designed to keep gay marriage illegal. If it's in the constitution, it can't be struck down as unconstitutional. Anything else is just conjecture on your part. It's the wording of the law, put into the constitution.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sbe.state.va.us/cms/documents/2006_Constitutional_Amendments/2006ques_marriage_APPROVED.pdf">http://www.sbe.state.va.us/cms/document ... PROVED.pdf</a><!-- m -->
The Constitution does not define marriage. Under current statutory law in
Virginia, persons who marry must have a license and be married by a licensed minister, judge, or other person authorized by law to perform marriages. Present law prohibits marriages between certain individuals. For example, the law prohibits a marriage between a brother and sister, between a couple where one of the parties is married to someone else, and between couples of the same sex.
In 1975, the General Assembly enacted a statute (present Code of Virginia § 20- 45.2) that states "A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited." In 1997, the General Assembly added a sentence to § 20-45.2 that states that:
Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.
In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law to prohibit certain civil unions or other arrangements between persons of the same sex. That law (Code of Virginia § 20- 45.3) states that:
A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or
jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
Thus, civil unions or other arrangements which purport ÔÇ£to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriageÔÇØ are prohibited by statute.
- CaptainHenreh - 11-07-2006
Maengelito Wrote:Thus, civil unions or other arrangements which purport ÔÇ£to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriageÔÇØ are prohibited by statute.
Right...and this amendment to the constitution prevents that statute from being deemed unconstitutional.
- Maengelito - 11-07-2006
i'm just copying and pasting. the amendment up for vote today is just a rewording, thats it.
- WRXtranceformed - 11-07-2006
Evan Wrote:WRXtranceformed Wrote:My main concern this election was vanilla vs. chocolate Frostys ™that didnt even make it past the primaries. OG Frosty in a landslide victory.
(he had the chocolate vote)
Hahaha
I'M DOWN WITH THE BROWN BABY!!