Election Day 2009 Thread.......

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yes, there's not a ton of national races today, but there are a few. Should be interesting to see how the governor races play out along with the special election in New York. I believe there's also a few state votes related to marriage/gay rights.

[chesapeake]

I was 79th to vote in my heavily Democratic Northern Virginia precinct this morning, which is pretty good for an off-year election. However, I still am not holding my breath for Creigh Deeds.

[JPhillips]

Despite what both parties want to say I don't think there are any trends to come out of this election.

NY-23 is interesting, but more so because of the split in the GOP. Even if Owens wins he'll almost certainly lose next year as the district has been GOP since the Civil War.

In NJ Corzine is terribly unpopular, but Christie may be the one person that's even less popular. Traditionally the Dems out perform polls in NJ and if that's the case this year the almost even polls would mean a Corzine victory. This is the one true tossup this election.

In VA McDonnell should win going away. The lesson to take out of that campaign is don't do what Deeds did. His campaign message was "Remember how you voted for Obama and Kaine and Warner? Well I'm not like them!"

[Honolulu_Blue]

Wake up, Detroit!

NO MORE POLITRICKS!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wake up, Detroit!

NO MORE POLITRICKS!

Mayor election today I take it?

I always love hearing about some of the local stuff. Nothing like a good city battle.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Mayor election today I take it?

I always love hearing about some of the local stuff. Nothing like a good city battle.

Yeah. I reckon Dave Bing, who has been the interim mayor since Kilpatrick was ousted and wento jail, is likely to win "re-election."

There is also a city council vote. It looks like only 5 of the 9 members are likely to be re-elected, since 2 have decided not to run, another lost in the primary, and a fourth quit after pleading guilty to bribery charges. This is a needed change, since the Detroit City Council has been one of the biggest jokes in politics in the entire country.

There is also a proposal to elect the council by district, which would be a great change. Detroit is one of the few major cities in America not to do it this way. It's shameful, because no one council member can be held accountable for conditions in any part of Detroit.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There is also a proposal to elect the council by district, which would be a great change. Detroit is one of the few major cities in America not to do it this way. It's shameful, because no one council member can be held accountable for conditions in any part of Detroit.

Really? So there's just a big list and you pick the four you want (or whatever number of seats are available)? That's brutal. I believe that KC has 7 seats that are elected by district and then 2 at-large seats that are elected by the entire city. So it's a hybrid of sorts.

[wade moore]

I was 79th to vote in my heavily Democratic Northern Virginia precinct this morning, which is pretty good for an off-year election. However, I still am not holding my breath for Creigh Deeds.


In VA McDonnell should win going away. The lesson to take out of that campaign is don't do what Deeds did. His campaign message was "Remember how you voted for Obama and Kaine and Warner? Well I'm not like them!"

Yup. He also went heavy on the smear campaign which did not go over well at all.

This one should be a route. I know of quite a few Democrats even that are voting for McDonnell. I don't even know that McDonnell is the best candidate, Deeds just botched it THAT badly.

[JPhillips]

Locally we have county elections. My favorite candidate is Aquanetta "Fairy Godmother" Wright. I don't know which is better Fairy Godmother or being named after hairspray.

[Toddzilla]

Deeds is miserable, so I'm not even casting a vote for governor this year. I've vote the under-ballot, but no way I can put my support behind either of the two gubernatorial candidates in Va this year.

[cartman]

There is an interesting local election in these parts today. There is a vote for a sales tax increase for a section of the county. The rationale for the sales tax is to maintain infrastructure for a new development that is going in. However, there is only one registered voter in the section that will be affected. And the sole voter also happens to be the developer of the new subdivision.

And to make matters more interesting, there is also another sales tax increase measure on the ballot, to increase the number of firefighters for the rural fire department. However, they had to withdraw this measure, because if both the infrastructure and firefighter sales tax measures passed, they would have exceeded the maximum sales tax rates allowed, causing both to be invalidated.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I was in Northern VA over the weekend and, man, there were thousands and thousands of election signs every where. It was crazy.

[DanGarion]

You people and your silly off peak elections.

[DeToxRox]

Where I live there are two absurd proposals to raise property taxes by 400 bucks a year to build a 3 million dollar rec center for our city. Not only would taxes be raised for this but it'd still cost 350 - 400 dollars a year to even join.

A total waste for a city with just around 15,000 people.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Where I live there are two absurd proposals to raise property taxes by 400 bucks a year to build a 3 million dollar rec center for our city. Not only would taxes be raised for this but it'd still cost 350 - 400 dollars a year to even join.

A total waste for a city with just around 15,000 people.

I'd check to see if a Bunko hall is included. That may push it over the top for some voters.

[terpkristin]

Yup. He also went heavy on the smear campaign which did not go over well at all.

This one should be a route. I know of quite a few Democrats even that are voting for McDonnell. I don't even know that McDonnell is the best candidate, Deeds just botched it THAT badly.

Agreed all around. I'm surprised Deeds won the primary over McAuliffe, and I think McAuliffe would've been a stronger candidate against McDonnell.

I can't decide, I think they both suck...but I'll be casting my ballot at 3 or so, here in Loudoun County. I may abstain from the governor's race, and maybe the lieutenant governor, only vote for attorney general and delegate. What does a lieutenant governor actually do in Virginia, anyway? The salary is $36,321 (according to League of Women Voters stuff), so it's unsurprising that so many of them seem to focus on their "real jobs" over the lt. gov role...

/tk

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I thought it was hilarious (and sad) that the guy that hosts the talk show I work on in NYC never once mentioned the mayoral race yesterday.

[JPhillips]

Agreed all around. I'm surprised Deeds won the primary over McAuliffe, and I think McAuliffe would've been a stronger candidate against McDonnell.

Yikes! McAuliffe is a complete asshole. What does that make Deeds?

[larrymcg421]

It will be interesting to see how the three way Atlanta Mayoral race goes. Mary Norwood has been running a bunch of ads emphatically stating that she is a Democrat and loves Barack Obama. The current Mayor has been trashing her and has stated her support for Kasim Reed.

[terpkristin]

Yikes! McAuliffe is a complete asshole. What does that make Deeds?

I think you'll find that most people who decide to run for political office are assholes. I think McAuliffe had more competence to take on McDonnell, not necessarily that he was a better person or less of a douche than Deeds. Though I thought Deed's emphasis on McDonnell's thesis however many years ago was a dick move, highlighted by the fact that I never saw any ad from him that actually did anything but attack McDonnell.

Then again, every time I saw a McDonnell ad, I had 2 thoughts:
1) this guy needs a hobby other than procreating
2) in his primary campaign, he had a quote from a newspaper supporting him that had a glaring grammatical error, and I couldn't believe he chose THAT quote as his only endorsement

/tk

[larrymcg421]

I hate McAuliffe with a passion. I would've donated to the Republican if McAuliffe was the nominee.

[CamEdwards]

McAuliffe would have a really tough road outside of northern VA if he had won the primary. Deeds on paper wasn't that bad a candidate, but he had a couple of problems. The first, as has been mentioned elsewhere, was an unrelenting negative campaign. He was actually running radio ads saying that McDonnell was going to bring Virginia back to the Dark Ages.

The second problem is that Deeds was incredibly light on specifics, including a lack of a transportation plan.

BTW, tk... if you have procreating as a hobby, why would you WANT another one? :)

[chesapeake]

Deeds comes off as a genuine, decent guy when you meet him one-on-one. Which, his campaign notwithstanding, he apparently is. McAuliffe seemed too much like a slick operator to me.

The standard playbook when you are down big, as Deeds was right out of the box, is that you have to drive up your opponent's negatives to have any shot to win. See Atwater, Lee for further reference on this strategy. In this year's races, it may work for Corzine. It probably won't for Deeds.

Deeds' biggest problem with this strategy is that when he narrowed the gap enough in October to maybe get back in this thing, he wasn't then ready to explain to voters why he was a better alternative.

Why is bringing up McDonnell's thesis a "dick move?" He wrote it, and his voting record indicates most of what is in it still forms his core beliefs.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Why is bringing up McDonnell's thesis a "dick move?" He wrote it, and his voting record indicates most of what is in it still forms his core beliefs.

I heard about this thesis while was in the DC area last week as well. I don't see how this was a "dick move". This was a thesis that this candidate wrote when he was, what, 34 years old? It's not like he was some young kid and just saying stupid stuff. He was a 34 year old man saying stupid stuff.

From the sounds of it, it wasn't the the fact that he brought up the thesis that was bad, but rather the timing. He should have sat on it a bit to make it more relevant today. My understanding was that the whole thesis thing lost steam.

[CamEdwards]

I'm also curious to see how the special election in CA-10 turns out. I expect the Democrat to win, but the Democrats have an 18-point margin in terms of voter registration in the district. It'll be interesting to see if the Republican can lose by single digits. :)

[terpkristin]

I dunno, to me, it was a dick move not so much that he mentioned it, rather that he mentioned it OVER AND OVER AND OVER and that it's all he ever said.

I still have no freaking clue where he stands on issues, even after reading the League of Women Voters voting guides.

/tk

[chesapeake]

I dunno, to me, it was a dick move not so much that he mentioned it, rather that he mentioned it OVER AND OVER AND OVER and that it's all he ever said.

I still have no freaking clue where he stands on issues, even after reading the League of Women Voters voting guides.

/tk

The media found it interesting, so the campaign kept pushing it. And it resonated with a lot of women in Northern Virginia, even if it seems to have left you a little cold.

I couldn't agree more with you about the compaign's failure to explain what Deeds would do if elected. They had some solid attacks against McDonnell, but it doesn't count for anything if the electorate can't find a reason to think you'll do any better.

[RainMaker]

The VA race looks like a choice between shit and vomit. The NY congressional race doesn't seem as interesting now that the moderate dropped out and gave the conservative candidate the victory. NJ is interesting as Corzine seems to be behind in a lot of polls but incumbents sometimes do poorly in polls and then gain a few extra points on election day.

[terpkristin]

The VA race looks like a choice between shit and vomit.

Come on, this is a forum that has a thread DEVOTED to South Park. The VA race is REALLY between a douche and a turd sandwich. :D

/tk

[RainMaker]

The thesis is interesting. I guess people should probably look past it and just go by his voting record. On the other hand, it wasn't like this was written in the 60's. It was written in 1989 with some really radical ideas and bigoted ideas.

I guess it's a matter of whether people believe he has changed or can change. I haven't followed the story much but has he said he is no longer bigoted toward homosexuals? Does he consider women equals now?

If a guy was in the KKK in 1989, would you vote for him if he says he's changed? The people of West Virginia did many years ago.

[Passacaglia]

McAuliffe would have a really tough road outside of northern VA if he had won the primary. Deeds on paper wasn't that bad a candidate, but he had a couple of problems. The first, as has been mentioned elsewhere, was an unrelenting negative campaign. He was actually running radio ads saying that McDonnell was going to bring Virginia back to the Dark Ages.

The second problem is that Deeds was incredibly light on specifics, including a lack of a transportation plan.

BTW, tk... if you have procreating as a hobby, why would you WANT another one? :)

When did Virginia have its Dark Ages, anyway?

[Toddzilla]

When did Virginia have its Dark Ages, anyway?right up until 2006 I believe :)

[CamEdwards]

The media found it interesting, so the campaign kept pushing it. And it resonated with a lot of women in Northern Virginia, even if it seems to have left you a little cold.

I couldn't agree more with you about the compaign's failure to explain what Deeds would do if elected. They had some solid attacks against McDonnell, but it doesn't count for anything if the electorate can't find a reason to think you'll do any better.

I don't know how much of an impact the thesis had on women. This poll suggests that McDonnell is leading Deeds on "issues of special concern to women".

McDonnell Even Leads Among Women -- Political Wire (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/10/27/mcdonnell_even_leads_among_women.html)

I suppose we'll see what the final numbers look like, but I think at the end of the day the Deeds camp saw McDonnell's thesis and thought it was going to be a much bigger deal than it turned out to be... in part because if you look at the legislative record of Creigh Deeds, you'll find he has a lot in common with McDonnell when it comes to social issues. Deeds never really wanted to bring it up, and McDonnell didn't need to, but Deeds has cast his pro-life votes and anti-gay marriage votes.

[sabotai]

Christie has an early, big lead over Corzine for NJ Governor.. He's up by ~90,000 votes, 52% to 42%, with 36% reporting.

EDIT: Just as I post, I hit refresh and it's down to 49% to 44% for Christie now with 44% reporting and the lead cut in half.

[stevew]

Didn't note today.

But I hope the peeps in Ohio pased casinos.

[stevew]

Come on, this is a forum that has a thread DEVOTED to South Park. The VA race is REALLY between a douche and a turd sandwich. :D

/tk

Vote OR DiE!!

[King of New York]

I voted for Moran in the VA primary--I still think that he might have given McDonnell a run for his money. As usual, my guy finished third out of three.

This is the fault of the Washington Post, which, right before the primary, endorsed Deeds for reasons that baffle me to this day.

I'm not sure what we're getting with McDonnell--whether he's going to court Northern Virginia and aim to be a pragmatic problem solver, or whether he's going to go all Jim Gilmore on us and be more of a problem creator.

[cuervo72]

Damned VA race resulted in the Great Pumpkin being preempted last week on WJLA. Yeah, some of us don't live in VA k thx!

[Galaxy]

You people and your silly off peak elections.

It could be worse. You could be Canadian and go around saying Halloween Apples. :D

[RainMaker]

I'm a little surprised the Bloomberg race was so close. What was the reason for that?

[RainMaker]

And the only race I really care about is the Maine same-sex marriage one. Hope the bigots don't win out again.

[Young Drachma]

I'm a little surprised the Bloomberg race was so close. What was the reason for that?

Umm..this billionaire spent a bunch of money to get the rules changed and people resented it.

[Swaggs]

And the only race I really care about is the Maine same-sex marriage one. Hope the bigots don't win out again.

It looks like it is going to be really close, unfortunately.

[Jon]

Don't be tricked by the Christie win over Corzine. Despite the media and pundits spin, it is neither (1) unexpected nor (2) a referendum on Obama. Corzine is hugely unpopular and would have likely been defeated had he been challenged in the primary. In fact, if you look back at the time Corzine was being mentioned for a possible cabinet post, the loudest chorus in favor came from N.J. Besides, you can't really expect to win when a week or so before the election you announce higher tolls on the N.J. Turnpike and that you're going to shut down a large no of Fire Departments statewide (and cutting funding for volunteer fire depts).
I thought that he was in trouble when I noticed the lack of GOTV efforts two weeks before the election. Yeah, I know Obama came to the state, but the big names didn't work with Corzine either before or after that visit. And there wasn't a real GOTV push today. I live in Hudson County, the state's bluest county where the Dem can counter any other vote total with a strong turnout--and it wasn't there. There was no substantial efforts to get people to the polls.

[ISiddiqui]

And it looks like Hoffman conceded in NY-23. Giving a solidly R district to the Dems. With McDonnell and Christie winning governorships, it seems like a solid victory for the moderate wing of the Republican Party and a loss for the conservative wing.

[MrBug708]

Shades of things to come

[Swaggs]

And it looks like Hoffman conceded in NY-23. Giving a solidly R district to the Dems. With McDonnell and Christie winning governorships, it seems like a solid victory for the moderate wing of the Republican Party and a loss for the conservative wing.

The NY-23 result is interesting, as you mentioned, for the future of the Republican party. Will the GOP support more moderate, electable candidates or more conservative candidates that will have tougher time winning elections, but will drive the hard right agenda moreso?

Not sure if there was anything, projectable to 2010, learned today, but it will certainly be interesting to see who comes out of the Republican primaries next Spring/Summer.

[larrymcg421]

The Atlanta Mayoral race was surprisingly close. The question heading into election day was all about if Mary Norwood could get the 50% needed to avoid a runoff. Not only did she fail to achieve that, she ended up with only a 5 point lead on her closest competitor, Kassim Reed.

Sounds like the last minute endorsement from the current Mayor Shirley Franklin helped, not to mention her pretty harsh attacks on Norwood.

I've got to think there's no way Norwood can win now. Reed should get a very large portion of 3rd place finisher Lisa Borders votes.

[CamEdwards]

And it looks like Hoffman conceded in NY-23. Giving a solidly R district to the Dems. With McDonnell and Christie winning governorships, it seems like a solid victory for the moderate wing of the Republican Party and a loss for the conservative wing.

But McDonnell was the one who was going to bring us back to the Dark Ages, remember? And Chris Christie is pro-life and said he would veto legislation legalizing gay marriage.

The difference is that these candidates didn't run on those issues. They ran as the candidate who could be a competent manager of the state, and voters seemed to believe them over the alternative. Hell, a pro-life Republican just won the county executive position in Westchester County over a three-term incumbent... but he based his campaign on competence, not social issues.

[RainMaker]

But McDonnell was the one who was going to bring us back to the Dark Ages, remember? And Chris Christie is pro-life and said he would veto legislation legalizing gay marriage.

The difference is that these candidates didn't run on those issues. They ran as the candidate who could be a competent manager of the state, and voters seemed to believe them over the alternative. Hell, a pro-life Republican just won the county executive position in Westchester County over a three-term incumbent... but he based his campaign on competence, not social issues.
That is how people should look at it though. They are employees. Most of us would not care what our employees think or believe if they get the job done well. McDonnell is a bigot with low self esteem, but if he does his job well for the people that is all that should matter.

[RainMaker]

Reading through the spin on sites from both sides of the aisle is kind of funny. I don't know if it's just spin or these people are utterly clueless.

I love how both sides act as if some of these small races are "national referendums". Governor races are predominately about local issues since the Governors don't have much say on any national policy decisions. I didn't follow the Virginia race much, but am surprised Corzine actually kept it that close. I remember hearing him on talk shows before the Presidential elections and I thought he was a huge douchebag. Proabably doesn't help that he was heavily tied into the financial/banking industry when we're dealing with the effects of those guys fucking over our economy.

The NY race really should have been the standard Republican win in that district but they seem to have royally fucked themselves in the ass on that one. All over a couple social issues that the representative would have not had any impact on in Congress anyway.

In related news, Republicans are going hard after Mark Kirk in Illinois for some reason. They know they won't be able to clip him in the primary for the Senate seat, but they are threatening to run some conservative guy who got slaughtered in a State Senate race last year as an independent. Just don't get why they won't get behind him as he's a pretty smart guy (I'd probably vote for him) and Illinois would be a great pickup for the party come next November. But if they run a 3rd party candidate or don't support him, he'll lose to Giannoulias (they appear tied in most polls). Giannoulias seems like a smart guy, but I don't think has the experience to be a Senator right now. He's also part of the machine here and I'd rather go with Kirk who has an independent streak in him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Reading through the spin on sites from both sides of the aisle is kind of funny.

I think I might just agree with you on that sentence & stop there for now.

Although I do think the results from Maine (between the marriage & marijuana outcomes) do provide a good opportunity for all the spinners to end up in one place.

[Klinglerware]

But McDonnell was the one who was going to bring us back to the Dark Ages, remember? And Chris Christie is pro-life and said he would veto legislation legalizing gay marriage.

The difference is that these candidates didn't run on those issues.

On the other hand, Christie is pro-civil union, doesn't believe it's necessarily a crime to be in the United States illegally, and is a vehement supporter of New Jersey's gun ownership restrictions.

While Christie is no leftist, these days you will have a really hard time winning a statewide race in the northeast if you have mainstream social conservative views. I would categorize Christie as slightly to the right of the republicans who generally win statewide office in New Jersey (e.g., Kean & Whitman), but he is still mostly in the moderate camp.

[Jon]

On the other hand, Christie is pro-civil union, doesn't believe it's necessarily a crime to be in the United States illegally, and is a vehement supporter of New Jersey's gun ownership restrictions.

While Christie is no leftist, these days you will have a really hard time winning a statewide race in the northeast if you have mainstream social conservative views. I would categorize Christie as slightly to the right of the republicans who generally win statewide office in New Jersey (e.g., Kean & Whitman), but he is still mostly in the moderate camp.

And, what I do think helped him a lot--is that he kept out the divisive Republicans, at least publicly, such as Palin, Michael Steele, etc. Corzine kept trying to tie him to Bush, but he made efforts to distance himself from the GOP. Some nationally prominent Republicans came to Jersey, but they were primarily private events designed to rev up the base.
Christie may have won the governorship, but N.J. is still very much a blue state (like I think Va was always a red state--the media love to make a mountain out of a molehill with electoral aberrations such as a Dem winning Va). The assembly is still controlled by the Dems (and may be more liberal after last night's elections). This was a referendum on Corzine, who was viewed as not doing anything to make things better but getting people mad. Christie will do some of the exact same stuff that Corzine did budget-wise.

[JPhillips]

Don't be tricked by the Christie win over Corzine. Despite the media and pundits spin, it is neither (1) unexpected nor (2) a referendum on Obama. Corzine is hugely unpopular and would have likely been defeated had he been challenged in the primary. In fact, if you look back at the time Corzine was being mentioned for a possible cabinet post, the loudest chorus in favor came from N.J. Besides, you can't really expect to win when a week or so before the election you announce higher tolls on the N.J. Turnpike and that you're going to shut down a large no of Fire Departments statewide (and cutting funding for volunteer fire depts).
I thought that he was in trouble when I noticed the lack of GOTV efforts two weeks before the election. Yeah, I know Obama came to the state, but the big names didn't work with Corzine either before or after that visit. And there wasn't a real GOTV push today. I live in Hudson County, the state's bluest county where the Dem can counter any other vote total with a strong turnout--and it wasn't there. There was no substantial efforts to get people to the polls.

Tough to get reelected with an approval rating in the 30s.

[JPhillips]

The interesting question coming out of last night is whether the teabaggers will continue the assault on perceived RINOs nationwide. I expect Owens to lose in that district in 2010, but it's stunning that a Dem won there. Will the base understand that a big tent is essential for a national majority or will they double down on "not conservative enough"?

[ISiddiqui]

But McDonnell was the one who was going to bring us back to the Dark Ages, remember? And Chris Christie is pro-life and said he would veto legislation legalizing gay marriage.

The difference is that these candidates didn't run on those issues. They ran as the candidate who could be a competent manager of the state, and voters seemed to believe them over the alternative. Hell, a pro-life Republican just won the county executive position in Westchester County over a three-term incumbent... but he based his campaign on competence, not social issues.

Bob Dole was pro-life too. So was John McCain. Being pro-life doesn't make you a non-moderate. Most Republicans considered Christie and McDonnell as moderate R's. Sure competence is what matters, but lets not say that super conservatives can win in purple or blue states if they only run on competence.

[ISiddiqui]

The interesting thing is that Christie, while pro-life, isn't in favor of pushing it down people's throats, but wants restrictions on the practice. He is pro-gun control (at least for the current laws in NJ, which are fairly substantial). Has called illegal immigration a civil NOT criminal wrong, and is for civil unions (but not marriage equality).

He's a textbook definition of what the Palinites would call a RINO.

[Klinglerware]

Umm..this billionaire spent a bunch of money to get the rules changed and people resented it.

Yeah, a lot of the closeness of the NYC mayoral race was probably due to the term limits fight. Another factor is the off-season low turnout--the voters most incented to vote were the angry anti-Bloomberg hardcore dems, while many of the people who would have voted for Bloomberg didn't really have strong enough feelings to turn out.

In general though, it was a bad year to be an incumbent, on account of the economy. NYC felt a pretty strong impact from the financial services meltdown by virtue of so many of those firms being headquartered in the city. It's not just the loss of tax revenue: since so much of the service economy in NYC is dependent on the discretionary spending of those firms and the people who work there, when that Wall Street money disappeared a lot of non Finance workers got hurt.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm also curious to see how the special election in CA-10 turns out. I expect the Democrat to win, but the Democrats have an 18-point margin in terms of voter registration in the district. It'll be interesting to see if the Republican can lose by single digits. :)

Looks like a 15% win for the Democrat.

Agree with JPhillips much, much earlier in the thread that I don't think there's going to be a lot to conclude, "trend-wise" from these elections. We're not at the point of wholesale Democratic rejection, or Republican redemption, yet.

[flere-imsaho]

In related news, Republicans are going hard after Mark Kirk in Illinois for some reason. They know they won't be able to clip him in the primary for the Senate seat, but they are threatening to run some conservative guy who got slaughtered in a State Senate race last year as an independent. Just don't get why they won't get behind him as he's a pretty smart guy (I'd probably vote for him) and Illinois would be a great pickup for the party come next November. But if they run a 3rd party candidate or don't support him, he'll lose to Giannoulias (they appear tied in most polls). Giannoulias seems like a smart guy, but I don't think has the experience to be a Senator right now. He's also part of the machine here and I'd rather go with Kirk who has an independent streak in him.

Looking at the GOP bench in IL, Kirk was almost certainly the best candidate they could have put forward for that seat, so it warms my heart that the conservatives in his party are going to torpedo his chances this way. And I imagine we'll probably get a Democrat in his Congressional seat (my district) when all is said and done.

All because he's pro-choice and pro-gun control, basically.

[Z²+]

In other news, after two decades of voting it down time after time after time, Ohio voters chose to legalize 4 full fledged casinos in the state (one each in Columbus, Cincinnatti, Clevaland, and Toledo). This will probably be the beginning of the end for the WV casino I work in, but at least it gives me 4 new spots to apply to. Now, if we could only get the PA legislature to get off their hands and finally agree to pass table games too (since the PA budget that was passed last month included around 200 million from table games revenue, you'd think they might want to get the actual legislation passed some time soon...)

[stevew]

You work at Mountaineer?

I'd say you'll still get a fair amount of people from Ohio, there's still a bunch of people that would presumedly drive there over going to Cleveland.

[larrymcg421]

Really frustrated that the gay marriage law was struck down by the voters in Maine.

[larrymcg421]

dola

I'd add that it's pretty funny to watch the GOP trying to claim this election as some sort of resurgence for the party when they lost a congressional seat for the first time in a century.

[RainMaker]

Looking at the GOP bench in IL, Kirk was almost certainly the best candidate they could have put forward for that seat, so it warms my heart that the conservatives in his party are going to torpedo his chances this way. And I imagine we'll probably get a Democrat in his Congressional seat (my district) when all is said and done.

All because he's pro-choice and pro-gun control, basically.
He's also pro-environment which he's had to be. He's won a relatively Democratic district against strong competition the last two elections.

Outside of Net Neutrality and the war, I like him. It would be sad to see him lose because of wingnuts who think that a far-right guy can win in Illinois. Ask them how well Alan Keyes faired here 6 years ago.

[JPhillips]

He's also pro-environment which he's had to be. He's won a relatively Democratic district against strong competition the last two elections.

Outside of Net Neutrality and the war, I like him. It would be sad to see him lose because of wingnuts who think that a far-right guy can win in Illinois. Ask them how well Alan Keyes faired here 6 years ago.

Have you seen the letter he sent Palin a couple of days ago begging for her endorsement? Every moderate Republican is terrified of being teabagged.

[RainMaker]

Have you seen the letter he sent Palin a couple of days ago begging for her endorsement? Every moderate Republican is terrified of being teabagged.
Yeah I heard about it. All politicians court endorsements. He's been rather moderate over the years so unless his platform has changed without anyone knowing, I don't mind.

[JPhillips]

The rumors are that he was prepared to go hard right if Hoffman won, but is now in limbo. As long as he can keep a primary challenge out of it he should be fine, but if a Hoffman or Rubio emerges he'll be in trouble in the primary or the general if there's a third party challenge.

[larrymcg421]

Seems like Kirk is stuck in a bad spot. I'd think a Palin endorsement would certainly doom his chances in IL, but then again he can't afford to have a conservative third party candidate steal away votes.

[RainMaker]

The rumors are that he was prepared to go hard right if Hoffman won, but is now in limbo. As long as he can keep a primary challenge out of it he should be fine, but if a Hoffman or Rubio emerges he'll be in trouble in the primary or the general if there's a third party challenge.
Those rumors are insane. Hoffman was competing in a heavily Republican district. Kirk is in a statewide election in a blue state. A shift to the hard right would not only cause him to get hammred in the Senate race, but definitely lose his House seat as well.

[JPhillips]

That's why all the GOP moderates are terrified.

Go crazy and lose the general, stay sane and lose the primary. Scozzafava's voting record was slightly more conservative that the NY State GOP average, but she still got torched because she was a supposed RINO. If Crist is a target I'm sure Kirk has to tread carefully to avoid a Club for Growth sponsored challenger.

[Autumn]

Really frustrated that the gay marriage law was struck down by the voters in Maine.

I did my part, but unfortunately it went the other way. It was reasonably close, at least, which gives me some hope. It would have been rather shocking to have it upheld by popular referendum, but when I went to bed it looked like it was going that way.

[Raiders Army]

What's interesting is that gay marriage has never been upheld by the people. The only way that it's been legal is through courts or legislation.

[Autumn]

What's interesting is that gay marriage has never been upheld by the people. The only way that it's been legal is through courts or legislation.

Right, which is why it would have been shocking. But not surprising, civil rights issues often aren't decided by popular vote until after the fact.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But not surprising, civil rights issues often aren't decided by popular vote until after the fact.

And even less so when it's a faux "rights" issue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The majority isn't always right.

Neither is the minority, although damned if some folks don't seemed to think so.

[RainMaker]

What's interesting is that gay marriage has never been upheld by the people. The only way that it's been legal is through courts or legislation.
Civil rights issues shouldn't be brought up to a popular vote. It's the whole reason we have a court system. To protect the minority from having rights taken away by the majority.

If civil rights issues were done strictly by popular vote, we'd likely still have segregation in many states as well as bans on interracial marriage, certain religions, and more.

[stevew]

If people who don't smoke and don't go to bars can decide I can't smoke when I'm out, then I really could care less if straight people vote down gay marriage.

Too bad Oderman won't cry about my issue.

And I'd probably vote for gay marriage personally. Just cause of the fact that there needs to be legal protections available for adults in a committed relationship.

[RainMaker]

If people who don't smoke and don't go to bars can decide I can't smoke when I'm out, then I really could care less if straight people vote down gay marriage.
Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

And it would be more like a law in place that didn't allow women or Asian people to smoke but everyone else could.

[Z²+]

You work at Mountaineer?

I'd say you'll still get a fair amount of people from Ohio, there's still a bunch of people that would presumedly drive there over going to Cleveland.

Yep, good 'ol Mountaineer. A vast majority of our Ohio table players come from the Youngstown/Boardman/Mahoning Valley area, so depending where exactly in the Cleveland area they build the new casino, our Ohio base will be exactly between our casino and the Cleveland one. I'm anticipating most will visit the Cleveland one either for 1) the "new-ness" factor, or 2) to "keep our dollars in Ohio". Either way, I fear it will have a significant negative impact on us. Luckily, unlike PA (where table will simply be added to the existing casinos), Ohio will have to start at square one -- design the casino, secure funding, break ground, deal with construction delays --meaning it could be two to three years before they are actually competing with us. Hopefully by then I'm gainfully employed somewhere in PA or elsewhere :)

[stevew]

I'd say the advantage is that Mountaineer is easy to get to. Whereas people might try Cleveland once, get pissed with the poor city planning and traffic patterns, and then go back to Mounaineer.

[DaddyTorgo]

And the only race I really care about is the Maine same-sex marriage one. Hope the bigots don't win out again.

fucking bigots. can we create a special little "bigot state" just for them?

[DaddyTorgo]

And it looks like Hoffman conceded in NY-23. Giving a solidly R district to the Dems. With McDonnell and Christie winning governorships, it seems like a solid victory for the moderate wing of the Republican Party and a loss for the conservative wing.

really?? he did?? :eek:

WOW

[CamEdwards]

fucking bigots. can we create a special little "bigot state" just for them?

Considering voters in 31 states have rejected gay marriage, I don't think the special little state would be big enough to hold all the "bigots".

[DaddyTorgo]

And even less so when it's a faux "rights" issue.

how is it faux?

[DaddyTorgo]

Considering voters in 31 states have rejected gay marriage, I don't think the special little state would be big enough to hold all the "bigots".

i go back to my discussions in the obama thread with Jon about dividing the country up - that seems to be the best solution.

[JPhillips]

If people who don't smoke and don't go to bars can decide I can't smoke when I'm out, then I really could care less if straight people vote down gay marriage.

Too bad Oderman won't cry about my issue.

And I'd probably vote for gay marriage personally. Just cause of the fact that there needs to be legal protections available for adults in a committed relationship.

I'm no fan of a ban in bars, but until second hand gay is a proven carcinogen your comparison doesn't work.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

......second hand gay is a proven carcinogen.....

By far, some of your best work. Nicely done.

[DanGarion]

how is it faux?

Because as Jon has pointed out previously, they aren't being prevented to marry anyone that the people who are straight would marry. They have the same rights as everyone else.

(don't agree, but that's what Jon has stated in the past)

[DaddyTorgo]

Because as Jon has pointed out previously, they aren't being prevented to marry anyone that the people who are straight would marry. They have the same rights as everyone else.

(don't agree, but that's what Jon has stated in the past)

that argument is really weak. i'm too busy to take the time to rip it to shreds, but it's pretty pathetic.

[Kodos]

So if Larry can marry Sherry, can Teri marry Sherry too?

[JPhillips]

that argument is really weak. i'm too busy to take the time to rip it to shreds, but it's pretty pathetic.

Doesn't take much time. All men are allowed to marry a woman, but women are denied that same right.

[JonInMiddleGA]

that argument is really weak. i'm too busy to take the time to rip it to shreds, but it's pretty pathetic.

So are attempts to legitimize something as wholly absurd as gay marriage, which makes about as much sense as a law declaring the color blue shall now be known as the color smrzfrl but I've tried not to stir that pot in this thread. I didn't go on repeatedly length about my hopes for the vote and I didn't gloat over an outcome that I consider far more encouraging & important than a couple of governor's races. Honestly I've said precious little about it in this thread considering the utter delight I took in the surprising (to me) outcome.

But as for any effort to "rip it to shreds", all you're going to do is further reveal yourself to me as either a damned fool who can't comprehend the meaning of a rather simple word or as someone so morally bankrupt that you'll go to any length to try to socially legitimize something than cannot be legitimized in any fashion. Either way there's zero gain there, and especially since in recent weeks we've at least managed to find enough common ground to occasionally amuse/entertain either each other or a few of those around us. Why fuck that up?

[RainMaker]

Doesn't take much time. All men are allowed to marry a woman, but women are denied that same right.
Which makes it on the same level as interracial marriage laws.

[DanGarion]

Which makes it on the same level as interracial marriage laws.

+1. Ding we have a winner.

[RainMaker]

So are attempts to legitimize something as wholly absurd as gay marriage, which makes about as much sense as a law declaring the color blue shall now be known as the color smrzfrl but I've tried not to stir that pot in this thread. I didn't go on repeatedly length about my hopes for the vote and I didn't gloat over an outcome that I consider far more encouraging & important than a couple of governor's races. Honestly I've said precious little about it in this thread considering the utter delight I took in the surprising (to me) outcome.
What makes it so important to you? Do you feel the gays coming into your neighborhood may turn you gay? Are you not secure with your own sexuality? Do they commit more crimes? I'm lost on this. I live near a gay neighborhood in Chicago (Boystown) and it's relatively a high class neighborhood with minimal crime. It appears to me that the biggest issue with having a gay couple in your neighborhood would be that it may *GASP* raise your property value.

So I'm curious as you've been vague in your responses, what are the big negatives here when it comes to allowing other people to marry? How does it negatively impact your life? I guess I must be a loner because I've just never been that concerned with who complete strangers choose to fall in love with and marry.

But as for any effort to "rip it to shreds", all you're going to do is further reveal yourself to me as either a damned fool who can't comprehend the meaning of a rather simple word or as someone so morally bankrupt that you'll go to any length to try to socially legitimize something than cannot be legitimized in any fashion. Either way there's zero gain there, and especially since in recent weeks we've at least managed to find enough common ground to occasionally amuse/entertain either each other or a few of those around us. Why fuck that up?
Marriage was primarily a private matter and done for business reasons back in its early stages. It was done for political and inheritance reasons.

It's also meant a lot of different things to a lot of different groups of people. At one point marriage was between an adult male and a young teenage female (well below the 18 year old mark we justify). Do we as a country not understand the word marriage because we don't allow a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl?

Many sophisticated societies believed marriage had to be done within the family. Are you opposed to the U.S. laws regarding incest? Shall we start demanding that individuals marry a close relative? Others demand that marriages be arranged.

In the United States, we've defined marriage between a white male and white woman. We've defined it as the man having all the power and possesion of property and children. That he could assault and rape his wife on a nightly basis if he so chose to. The definition has changed dramatically in this country.

Which brings us to where we are now. Marriage is really just a legal contract between two parties. It has no mention of eternal love or any other mystical or spiritual elements. It is not much different than a legal contract you sign for the home you buy or a job offer you take.

Now you may define marriage differently based on your spiritual beliefs. That's fine and your church has every right to not marry people they don't want to on that basis. But that has nothing to do with legal marriage offered through the government. Not everyone lives their life based on the ever changing interpretation of some fairy tales written 2000 years ago.

[JPhillips]

More evidence there's no room for moderates in the GOP:

RNC Chairman Michael Steele, channeling his party's energized conservative wing, said the party will "come after" moderates who support President Obama's domestic policies.

"[C]andidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you,” Steele told ABC's Top Line in response to a question about Republicans who support the White House's stimulus and health care plans.

Do they not know they lost NY-23?

[JonInMiddleGA]

What makes it so important to you?

More than any other single thing, it's the utter lunacy of redefining words in an attempt to make the unacceptable somehow more acceptable. The example I used earlier wasn't meant for humorous effect or even hyperbole,
I find the notion of attempting as utterly & completely absurd as legally changing the meaning of the word "blue". The gross stupidity of it, never mind the moral implications for a minute or two, offends me to my very core.

The definition has changed dramatically in this country.

There's been a lot of change in various things in the US over time, on that we can agree. But that fact does not make further change mandatory, nor does it justify any & all change.

Marriage is really just a legal contract between two parties.

Regardless of how lightly it is regarded in current society, that doesn't mean the change is for the better nor does it define what it "should" be.

It is not much different than a legal contract you sign for the home you buy or a job offer you take.

What a pitifully sad statement that is. It illustrates just how little meaning the institution has today. Why on earth cheapen it further? (Feel free to skip answering,it's a rhetorical question)

Not everyone lives their life based on the ever changing interpretation of some fairy tales written 2000 years ago.

And not everyone is willing to concede to the abominations that secular approaches seem so happy to embrace. This isn't the first time in my life I've been reminded that the greatest threats to this country remaining even remotely fit to live in, or even exist, come from within rather than without.

[RainMaker]

More than any other single thing, it's the utter lunacy of redefining words in an attempt to make the unacceptable somehow more acceptable. The example I used earlier wasn't meant for humorous effect or even hyperbole, I find the notion of attempting as utterly & completely absurd as legally changing the meaning of the word "blue". The gross stupidity of it, never mind the moral implications for a minute or two, offends me to my very core.
But the word has so many definitions and has changed so much over history. The word blue has gone relatively unchanged in its definition over the course of human history. You could go up to 10 people on the street and ask them what marriage means to them and get 10 different responses. Some view it as spiritual, some as a business, some as mandatory, some as convenience. I made a thread awhile back about why people get married and almost every response in it for or against marriage had different responses.

Regardless of how lightly it is regarded in current society, that doesn't mean the change is for the better nor does it define what it "should" be.

What a pitifully sad statement that is. It illustrates just how little meaning the institution has today. Why on earth cheapen it further? (Feel free to skip answering,it's a rhetorical question)

You are combining the legal form of marriage with the spiritual/emotional side. The legal form should just be that, a legal set of benefits/rules that are in place if you choose to marry someone. When you go down to City Hall to get married, you're just signing a document that says you can file taxes together, pass on inheritance, and allow them to make decisions on your life. You're as anti-government as they come so I'm not sure why you would want the government to tell you how you should view marriage and how you should handle it.

The emotional/spiritual side is seperate. If a Church wants to banish gays from getting married, then so be it. If a person wants to have a gigantic celebration to show their love, then so be it. If someone just wants to go through a drive-thru, then so be it. You're love and marriage is private to you and what you get from it emotionally and spiritually should be your decision, not the governments.

Which is the biggest problem we have. We've merged that religious/spiritual/emotional side of marriage to the legal one. They are seperate and that is a good thing for people of all walks of life.

And not everyone is willing to concede to the abominations that secular approaches seem so happy to embrace. This isn't the first time in my life I've been reminded that the greatest threats to this country remaining even remotely fit to live in, or even exist, come from within rather than without.
You don't have to. No one is forcing you to marry another man. You have every right to be disgusted at it, just as I have every right to snicker when I see a young couple throw away what could be a retirement nest egg on a glamorous one-night party that no one will care about in a couple years.

I asked this in the previous post and still can't get a straight answer. What is this threat? I hear about the gay agenda, the threat of homosexuals getting married. What is going to happen though? I can't seem to find anyone to give a scenario about how letting some gay people to get married will somehow destroy this country.

[DanGarion]

Which brings us to where we are now. Marriage is really just a legal contract between two parties. It has no mention of eternal love or any other mystical or spiritual elements. It is not much different than a legal contract you sign for the home you buy or a job offer you take.

Now you may define marriage differently based on your spiritual beliefs. That's fine and your church has every right to not marry people they don't want to on that basis. But that has nothing to do with legal marriage offered through the government. Not everyone lives their life based on the ever changing interpretation of some fairy tales written 2000 years ago.

Damn +1 again to Rainmaker, exactly my thoughts.

[path12]

This isn't the first time in my life I've been reminded that the greatest threats to this country remaining even remotely fit to live in, or even exist, come from within rather than without.

This. Though from a diametrically opposed viewpoint.

[Denial Of Freedom]

You're as anti-government as they come so I'm not sure why you would want the government to tell you how you should view marriage and how you should handle it.


This is why I can not stand conservatives and do not vote with them even though I align more with them. I hate how a great majority are such hypocrites and bigots. They preach for the government to get out of peoples lives and make individuals responsible. However, when it comes to things that make them uncomfortable, even though the item does no physical harm to them, they want the government to get involved. I honestly do not know how some people can be so closed minded that they think it is alright to prevent people from their unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we are going to leave it to the voters to decide who to take rights away from I don't know how slavery was ever abolished. I doubt very highly that the voters in the southern states would have ever voted to get rid of it. Thankfully common sense prevailed and the government has stepped in, as I'm sure it will in a few years on this issue, that some people are just to dumb and ignorant to understand that they were not born with the right to oppress others just because they don't agree with their lifestyle.

[Greyroofoo]

Personally I think the government should just keep its nose out of marriage/civil unions entirely.

That would end the debate so we can focus on more important issues like the next American Idol winner or if Schmidty's sister is hot or not.

[DanGarion]

Personally I think the government should just keep its nose out of marriage/civil unions entirely.

That would end the debate so we can focus on more important issues like the next American Idol winner or if Schmidty's sister is hot or not.

If they kept out of it, then that would be the best of everything, since then those that are married would no longer get tax breaks. But then what we would do about people who are married and can't take any legal action if their partner was to die.

This is why the government needs to stay involved.

[molson]

This is why I can not stand conservatives and do not vote with them even though I align more with them. I hate how a great majority are such hypocrites and bigots. They preach for the government to get out of peoples lives and make individuals responsible. However, when it comes to things that make them uncomfortable, even though the item does no physical harm to them, they want the government to get involved.

So are liberals also hypocrites because they preach freedom from government intrusion on social/moral issues, but want government to be heavily involved in every other part of our lives?

It's not really about government/anti-government for most people. Most people just want government to regulate things they don't like (whether that be gays, or rich people, or liquor, or businesses), and stay out of things when they like the status quo.

[ISiddiqui]

Denial of Freedom may be a libertarian (as I got from his statement that he aligns more with conservatives... probably on idealized fiscal policy)

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's not really about government/anti-government for most people. Most people just want government to regulate things they don't like ... and stay out of things when they like the status quo.

Nice, neat, accurate summation afaic.

[RainMaker]

It's not really about government/anti-government for most people. Most people just want government to regulate things they don't like (whether that be gays, or rich people, or liquor, or businesses), and stay out of things when they like the status quo.
I would agree with that. I still think there is a heavy element of people who get off on telling other people how to live their life. Whether that's drugs, homosexuality, porn, smoking, etc. Some seem so upset with their own life that this stuff makes them feel good.

I would just like more honesty. If you're for taking rights away and such, don't be the ones holding signs about liberty and freedom at the next town hall.

[JPhillips]

Another "No Moderates Welcome" sign goes up. Jim Demint tells NRSC chairman Cornyn:

"He’s trying to find candidates who can win. I’m trying to find people who can help me change the Senate," said Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a leader of the conservative bloc. "To think we can grow the party by picking people who are more liberal and don’t share our core values doesn’t make any sense."

[Kodos]

I think the standard should be something like this: Any pair of people above the age of 18, regardless of sex, race, etc., can enter a civil union, and have the same legal rights and benefits conferred on them that any other couple has under our current legal understanding of "marriage". These rights would be covered by the government and would apply to all legal matters. Then, there could be a special form of civil unions called marriages, that would be conferred on top of the government granted civil union from the realm of religion. Marriage would have no legal significance or legal distinction from civil unions. It would just be like a nice topping on the civil union cupcake for those who wanted it.

Then hopefully there would be a progressive church out there that would allow gays to get "married" if they wanted to. :)

[sabotai]

Then hopefully there would be a progressive church out there that would allow gays to get "married" if they wanted to. :)

They already exist. Gay people have been getting married in churches for awhile now in every state*. It's just that most states won't recognize them as marriages.


* - a bit of an assumption on my part (the "every state" part), but I know the practice of gay couples getting married in churches is pretty widespread.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think the standard should be something like this: Any pair of people above the age of 18, regardless of sex, race, etc., can enter a civil union, and have the same legal rights and benefits conferred on them that any other couple has under our current legal understanding of "marriage". These rights would be covered by the government and would apply to all legal matters. Then, there could be a special form of civil unions called marriages, that would be conferred on top of the government granted civil union from the realm of religion. Marriage would have no legal significance or legal distinction from civil unions. It would just be like a nice topping on the civil union cupcake for those who wanted it.

Then hopefully there would be a progressive church out there that would allow gays to get "married" if they wanted to. :)

this is what i'd like to see happen too. i just think the state shouldn't be involved in the recognition of something that his historically been a religious institution when it has now come to have legal ramifications that are every bit as significant. it's a slippery slope that has led to the problems that we are seeing today. the state should give everyone a "civil union" license that gives you all of those rights. they could give them out before religious ceremonies, after religious ceremonies, i don't care. then on top of that you can go and get married in a church before/after or whatever.

i don't see why it's a big deal at all. everybody who's so worried that gays getting married is going to destroy the institution of marriage or whatever would be much better off taking the time and energy they've put into being opposed to it into their own relationships to improve them.

[RainMaker]

I think the standard should be something like this: Any pair of people above the age of 18, regardless of sex, race, etc., can enter a civil union, and have the same legal rights and benefits conferred on them that any other couple has under our current legal understanding of "marriage". These rights would be covered by the government and would apply to all legal matters. Then, there could be a special form of civil unions called marriages, that would be conferred on top of the government granted civil union from the realm of religion. Marriage would have no legal significance or legal distinction from civil unions. It would just be like a nice topping on the civil union cupcake for those who wanted it.

Then hopefully there would be a progressive church out there that would allow gays to get "married" if they wanted to. :)

If it has no legal signifigance or distinction, isn't it just a gigantic waste of time and money? And that doesn't seem to keep the seperation of church and state.

[DaddyTorgo]

i think he meant that marriages would be conferred by the realm of religion not by the government.

[RainMaker]

this is what i'd like to see happen too. i just think the state shouldn't be involved in the recognition of something that his historically been a religious institution when it has now come to have legal ramifications that are every bit as significant. it's a slippery slope that has led to the problems that we are seeing today. the state should give everyone a "civil union" license that gives you all of those rights. they could give them out before religious ceremonies, after religious ceremonies, i don't care. then on top of that you can go and get married in a church before/after or whatever.

i don't see why it's a big deal at all. everybody who's so worried that gays getting married is going to destroy the institution of marriage or whatever would be much better off taking the time and energy they've put into being opposed to it into their own relationships to improve them.
The funny thing is that marriage hasn't historically been a religious institution. In fact, much of human history it has not had any religious connection. It was really only in the last few hundred years when Churches tried to gain more power and influence did they tie themselves to it.

[JPhillips]

HAHAHA!

Everybody knows Jesus invented marriage.

[Autumn]

i don't see why it's a big deal at all. everybody who's so worried that gays getting married is going to destroy the institution of marriage or whatever would be much better off taking the time and energy they've put into being opposed to it into their own relationships to improve them.

Certainly I think divorce and infidelity are bigger risks to the institution of marriage than the recognizing of gay marriage. I liked the guy in California who's waging a "make divorce illegal" campaign.

[Greyroofoo]

HAHAHA!

Everybody knows Jesus invented marriage.

To Mary Magdalene right ;)