Go vote.
#61
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.
'76 911S | '14 328xi | '17 GTI | In memoriam: '08 848, '85 944

"Here, at last, is the cure for texting while driving. The millions of deaths which occur every year due to the iPhone’s ability to stream the Kim K/Ray-J video in 4G could all be avoided, every last one of them, if the government issued everyone a Seventies 911 and made sure they always left the house five minutes later than they’d wanted to. It would help if it could be made to rain as well. Full attention on the road. Guaranteed." -Jack Baruth
  Reply
#62
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.
1994 Ford Ranger
2004 Honda S2000
2007 BMW X3
  Reply
#63
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.
Two feet.
  Reply
#64
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.
1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass 442
  Reply
#65
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?
Two feet.
  Reply
#66
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.
1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass 442
  Reply
#67
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.
Two feet.
  Reply
#68
Just got back from voting. I did my part... if the state falls apart I take no responsibility!!!! :lol:
Posting in the banalist of threads since 2004

2017 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD Premium

Past: 2016 GMC Canyon All Terrain Crew Cab / 2010 Jaguar XFR / 2012 Acura RDX AWD Tech / 2008 Cadillac CTS / 2007 Acura TL-S / 1966 5.0 HO Mustang Coupe
2001 Lexus IS300 / 2004 2.8L big turbo WRX STI / 2004 Subaru WRX / A couple of old trucks
  Reply
#69
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.
1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass 442
  Reply
#70
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.
Two feet.
  Reply
#71
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.
2018 Ducati Panigale V4

Past: 2018 Honda Civic Type-R, 2015 Yamaha R1, 2009 BMW M3, 2013 Aprilia RSV4R, 2006 Honda Ridgeline, 2006 Porsche Cayman S, 2012 Ducati 1199, 2009 Subaru WRX, 2008 CBR1000RR, 2009 Kawasaki ZX-6R, 2000 Toyota Tundra, 2005 Honda CBR600RR, 1996 Acura Integra GS-R, 1996 Acura Integra GS-R, 1997 Honda Civic EX

http://www.aclr8.com
  Reply
#72
My main concern this election was vanilla vs. chocolate Frostys ™
Posting in the banalist of threads since 2004

2017 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD Premium

Past: 2016 GMC Canyon All Terrain Crew Cab / 2010 Jaguar XFR / 2012 Acura RDX AWD Tech / 2008 Cadillac CTS / 2007 Acura TL-S / 1966 5.0 HO Mustang Coupe
2001 Lexus IS300 / 2004 2.8L big turbo WRX STI / 2004 Subaru WRX / A couple of old trucks
  Reply
#73
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.
SM #55 | 06 Titan | 12 Focus | 06 Exige | 14 CX-5
  Reply
#74
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)
SM #55 | 06 Titan | 12 Focus | 06 Exige | 14 CX-5
  Reply
#75
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.
'76 911S | '14 328xi | '17 GTI | In memoriam: '08 848, '85 944

"Here, at last, is the cure for texting while driving. The millions of deaths which occur every year due to the iPhone’s ability to stream the Kim K/Ray-J video in 4G could all be avoided, every last one of them, if the government issued everyone a Seventies 911 and made sure they always left the house five minutes later than they’d wanted to. It would help if it could be made to rain as well. Full attention on the road. Guaranteed." -Jack Baruth
  Reply
#76
I voted...interested to see what happens at 7pm EST.
2017 Mineral White BMW M240i Cabriolet
2014 White Platinum Pearl Explorer Sport

Living in the Alamo City.
210
  Reply
#77
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.
1994 Ford Ranger
2004 Honda S2000
2007 BMW X3
  Reply
#78
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.
1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass 442
  Reply
#79
i'm just copying and pasting. the amendment up for vote today is just a rewording, thats it.
1994 Ford Ranger
2004 Honda S2000
2007 BMW X3
  Reply
#80
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!!
Posting in the banalist of threads since 2004

2017 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD Premium

Past: 2016 GMC Canyon All Terrain Crew Cab / 2010 Jaguar XFR / 2012 Acura RDX AWD Tech / 2008 Cadillac CTS / 2007 Acura TL-S / 1966 5.0 HO Mustang Coupe
2001 Lexus IS300 / 2004 2.8L big turbo WRX STI / 2004 Subaru WRX / A couple of old trucks
  Reply


Forum Jump: