Monday, February 25, 2008
We Brand Cattle And Voters In Texas
In Texas, we enjoy a two week early voting period before most elections. For the upcoming March 4 primary, Texans have been turning out in record numbers to take advantage of that early voting period. Early voting turnout numbers across the state have been very, very high. In some places, early voting turnout has seen a ten-fold increase over previous presidential elections.
Without a doubt, some of that record turnout is likely due to Republicans crossing party lines. They could be disgusted enough with their party to actually want to elect a Democrat, or they could be acting as spoilers hoping to give their nominee an easier race in November. Whatever is happening in the minds of voters as they choose which primary to participate it, it's important to know that we don't register a party affiliation here in Texas. The party whose primary we participate in is generally considered the party we're a member of between election cycles.
Some of those Republicans that are choosing to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary are running into a legal requirement that will haunt them for at least the next two years. They will be clearly and publicly identified as having voted in the Democratic primary. For some of them, being labeled as having voted in the Democratic primary is apparently akin to wearing a scarlet letter.
Gordon Peterson, a Democratic activist in Dallas, reports that "...we had one woman who came in and was very upset that she couldn't vote for all of the candidates (in both parties) that she wanted to vote for. She finally ([and] with obviously a great deal of angst) finally chose to vote in the Democratic primary, but only after being promised that we did not have to stamp her voter registration card to 'brand' her as having voted in the Democratic primary (even after being told that it was, regardless, a part of her permanent and public voting history)."
For the record, the emphasis in the above paragraph is his.
Mr. Peterson is right in that a voter's primary participation is a matter of public record. For as long as the woman he wrote about is a voter, anyone can do a search of the public record and see that she voted in the Democratic primary.
Where Mr. Peterson is wrong, and I suspect, so are a lot of other Democratic activists who serve as poll workers is that Texas law does indeed require voters to be "branded" with the name of the party whose primary they choose to vote in.
The law requires that voters be affixed with that brand in one of two ways. First, a voter's registration card is stamped with the name of the party whose primary he or she participates in. Second, and only if the voter doesn't bring his or her registration card to the polls, voters are issued a certificate showing which primary they voted in. In either case, the poll book is stamped with the party's name. Registration cards are used by voters until new ones are issued by the county and the poll books become part of the public record. One way or another, everybody can know which party a voter cast his or her lot with.
Personally, this poses no problem for me. I am proud to be a Democrat. I rather enjoy having my card stamped as such and seeing myself listed as a reliable "DP" (or Democratic Primary) voter in any number of databases. I don't really know what to tell people like that woman in Dallas.
What I do know is that having your primary voting history made public is a matter of law here in Texas. It's clearly laid out in Section 162.004 of the Texas Election Code. The use of the word "shall" in that section of the Code removes any ambiguity. Like it or not, the primary you vote in is the party you're labeled with.
Democratic poll workers across the Lone Star State need to keep this in mind. Every person that comes to vote in the Democratic primary must have their card stamped or be issued a certificate. If they don't want it, then they probably shouldn't be voting in our primary. If they're Republican spoilers, then forcing them to wear a label they hate is the least we can do. After all, they're trying to use our own election process to hurt us, so they deserve some kind of trouble in return.
Without a doubt, some of that record turnout is likely due to Republicans crossing party lines. They could be disgusted enough with their party to actually want to elect a Democrat, or they could be acting as spoilers hoping to give their nominee an easier race in November. Whatever is happening in the minds of voters as they choose which primary to participate it, it's important to know that we don't register a party affiliation here in Texas. The party whose primary we participate in is generally considered the party we're a member of between election cycles.
Some of those Republicans that are choosing to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary are running into a legal requirement that will haunt them for at least the next two years. They will be clearly and publicly identified as having voted in the Democratic primary. For some of them, being labeled as having voted in the Democratic primary is apparently akin to wearing a scarlet letter.
Gordon Peterson, a Democratic activist in Dallas, reports that "...we had one woman who came in and was very upset that she couldn't vote for all of the candidates (in both parties) that she wanted to vote for. She finally ([and] with obviously a great deal of angst) finally chose to vote in the Democratic primary, but only after being promised that we did not have to stamp her voter registration card to 'brand' her as having voted in the Democratic primary (even after being told that it was, regardless, a part of her permanent and public voting history)."
For the record, the emphasis in the above paragraph is his.
Mr. Peterson is right in that a voter's primary participation is a matter of public record. For as long as the woman he wrote about is a voter, anyone can do a search of the public record and see that she voted in the Democratic primary.
Where Mr. Peterson is wrong, and I suspect, so are a lot of other Democratic activists who serve as poll workers is that Texas law does indeed require voters to be "branded" with the name of the party whose primary they choose to vote in.
The law requires that voters be affixed with that brand in one of two ways. First, a voter's registration card is stamped with the name of the party whose primary he or she participates in. Second, and only if the voter doesn't bring his or her registration card to the polls, voters are issued a certificate showing which primary they voted in. In either case, the poll book is stamped with the party's name. Registration cards are used by voters until new ones are issued by the county and the poll books become part of the public record. One way or another, everybody can know which party a voter cast his or her lot with.
Personally, this poses no problem for me. I am proud to be a Democrat. I rather enjoy having my card stamped as such and seeing myself listed as a reliable "DP" (or Democratic Primary) voter in any number of databases. I don't really know what to tell people like that woman in Dallas.
What I do know is that having your primary voting history made public is a matter of law here in Texas. It's clearly laid out in Section 162.004 of the Texas Election Code. The use of the word "shall" in that section of the Code removes any ambiguity. Like it or not, the primary you vote in is the party you're labeled with.
Democratic poll workers across the Lone Star State need to keep this in mind. Every person that comes to vote in the Democratic primary must have their card stamped or be issued a certificate. If they don't want it, then they probably shouldn't be voting in our primary. If they're Republican spoilers, then forcing them to wear a label they hate is the least we can do. After all, they're trying to use our own election process to hurt us, so they deserve some kind of trouble in return.
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Road To Denver Starts In Lampasas!
Lampasas County Democrats invite all interested Democrats to attend a “mock” precinct convention on Tuesday, February 26, at 602 South Walnut Street. The "mock" convention will begin at 6:00 p.m.
Texas Secretary of State Phil Wilson expects “significant levels of voter turnout” for the March 4 Texas Primary. Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Richie says this year's turnout may be more than 200% greater than the 2004 primary. Local Democrats encourage all voters in the Democratic Primary to maximize their participation by attending the precinct conventions following the primary election at the polling places used on March 4.
Betty Lindsey, past-president, of the Democratic Women’s Association of Lampasas, observes that “many voters overlook the precinct caucuses from lack of experience, but almost a third of the delegates to the national convention are selected by the caucus process.” Democrats who hope to get the most delegates for their presidential candidate need to be at the caucuses on March 4.
Keith King, Chairman of the Lampasas County Democratic Party, says “the caucus hasn’t been important in recent presidential elections in Texas because the candidate had been decided before Texas voted. Because of the intensity in this presidential campaign our state party wants to be certain that precinct conventions are fair, orderly, and disciplined ‘in order to promote confidence in the outcome’. To foster this atmosphere we can hold a mock convention without the pressures of the true campaigns so participants will feel comfortable on March 4."
Daniel Melder, Executive Director of the Lampasas County Young Democrats, joined King in encouraging all interested Democratic voters to attend the mock convention on February 26. “The more voters participate in the process the more they’ll support the decision. I haven’t seen interest like this among young people in the last two elections and we want to keep their participation and excitement."
Here's a quick rundown of the details:
WHAT: Lampasas County Democrats "Mock" Precinct Convention
WHEN: Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: 602 South Walnut Street, Lampasas
The Young Democrats will follow the "mock" convention with a brief meeting to discuss plans for the upcoming Texas Young Democrats Convention and our new scholarship program. Complete details are available by clicking on the "Calendar" link on the left side of our homepage. We hope to see you there!
Note: if the casual readers of this blog are asking themselves if the above post reads like a press release, that's because it is a press release. Well, it's actually a modified version of a press release sent out by the Lampasas County Democratic Party. It pretty well says what needs to be said, so why should I reinvent the wheel?
Thursday, February 07, 2008
So When Do They Sign Up?
With Mitt "Better Than Ted" Romney out of the race, it would seem to me that each of his five sons are now free to join up and go fight the war in Iraq that their family and their party claim is so damn important. After all, it was the Romney patriarch who told Iowa voters that working on his failed campaign is just as noble as military service.
"My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ...And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
Now that "helping [him] get elected" is no longer an option, I have to ask how then play on "showing support for our nation" now. Something tells me it won't be military service. After all, it was 29-year-old Ben Romney who told Mike Wallace that he's "seen a lot and read a lot that has made me say, 'my goodness, I hope I never have to do that.'"
This all proves that the apple often doesn't fall far from the tree. The then draft-eligible Mitt Romney told Mike Wallace (for the same story in which his son Ben rejected military service) that he didn't serve during the Vietnam War because "I was at college. Then I went off and served my church for two and a half years."
As an aside, I should point out that I don't really like having to link to "NewsBusters" (now for the second time) to back up my information, but it's one of the few places where a transcript (albeit a partial one) of the Mike Wallace piece on Romney is available. The CBS News website makes it hard to find.
To be fair, I should disclose my own failure to serve in the military. Before graduating high school in 1999, I made multiple attempts to enlist with the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard. I was rejected each time because I didn't meet the physical requirements. Those rejections came even after I completed diets and exercise plans given to me by various recruiters. Shortly after those rejections, I was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes. This permanently bars me from military service. My father served and was wounded in Vietnam. Both my grandfathers served. The difference here is that I tried. I tried hard. My father and grandfathers actually did serve. Mitt and his progeny didn't and apparently won't, but they'll continue to tell you that others should.
Meanwhile, I think the entire Romney family also needs to answer for their history as Mexican immigrants, especially considering their confusing position on the issue.
"My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ...And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
Now that "helping [him] get elected" is no longer an option, I have to ask how then play on "showing support for our nation" now. Something tells me it won't be military service. After all, it was 29-year-old Ben Romney who told Mike Wallace that he's "seen a lot and read a lot that has made me say, 'my goodness, I hope I never have to do that.'"
This all proves that the apple often doesn't fall far from the tree. The then draft-eligible Mitt Romney told Mike Wallace (for the same story in which his son Ben rejected military service) that he didn't serve during the Vietnam War because "I was at college. Then I went off and served my church for two and a half years."
As an aside, I should point out that I don't really like having to link to "NewsBusters" (now for the second time) to back up my information, but it's one of the few places where a transcript (albeit a partial one) of the Mike Wallace piece on Romney is available. The CBS News website makes it hard to find.
To be fair, I should disclose my own failure to serve in the military. Before graduating high school in 1999, I made multiple attempts to enlist with the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard. I was rejected each time because I didn't meet the physical requirements. Those rejections came even after I completed diets and exercise plans given to me by various recruiters. Shortly after those rejections, I was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes. This permanently bars me from military service. My father served and was wounded in Vietnam. Both my grandfathers served. The difference here is that I tried. I tried hard. My father and grandfathers actually did serve. Mitt and his progeny didn't and apparently won't, but they'll continue to tell you that others should.
Meanwhile, I think the entire Romney family also needs to answer for their history as Mexican immigrants, especially considering their confusing position on the issue.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Best. Sponsor. Ever.
With the latest episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force just a soon-to-be-fleeting memory, I decided to go for a little drive and to pick up a late night snack while I was out. Shortly after driving through the exit gate at the front of my apartment complex, I noticed that it was 2:30 in the morning. That meant it was time for the bottom of the hour news update on KRLD.
With the green numbers of the half hour mark glowing on the clock in front of me, I turned on the radio. The KRLD anchor read a series of stories. Among those stories was one about the now-needless preparations that law enforcement officials in Boston had made for Super Bowl victory celebrations. Then came the traffic report. Shortly after the toss from the anchor to the traffic reporter, I heard what has got to be the best sponsor announcement I've ever heard. That hour's KRLD traffic report was brought to me by the makers of Kaopectate.
What better sponsor of a traffic report could there possibly be? After all, absolutely no one wants to be stuck in traffic while suffering the ailments that Kaopectate is supposed to relieve. Who knows? In addition to being good for one hell of a laugh, hearing that particular sponsor announcement at that particular time may have also been a bit of serendipity. If I let late night drives to pick up a snack become a habit, I may find myself needing some Kaopectate. Let's hope not.
With the green numbers of the half hour mark glowing on the clock in front of me, I turned on the radio. The KRLD anchor read a series of stories. Among those stories was one about the now-needless preparations that law enforcement officials in Boston had made for Super Bowl victory celebrations. Then came the traffic report. Shortly after the toss from the anchor to the traffic reporter, I heard what has got to be the best sponsor announcement I've ever heard. That hour's KRLD traffic report was brought to me by the makers of Kaopectate.
What better sponsor of a traffic report could there possibly be? After all, absolutely no one wants to be stuck in traffic while suffering the ailments that Kaopectate is supposed to relieve. Who knows? In addition to being good for one hell of a laugh, hearing that particular sponsor announcement at that particular time may have also been a bit of serendipity. If I let late night drives to pick up a snack become a habit, I may find myself needing some Kaopectate. Let's hope not.
My Piece Of A Really Big Crow
A lot of Super Bowl XLII viewers are eating crow today and I'm one of them. Richard Corey, a public servant, a close friend of mine, and an infrequent blogger, called me during the second quarter of last night's big game. A brief transcript of the relevant parts of our conversation follows.
Richard: "Are you watching the Super Bowl?"
Daniel: "I'm flipping around between it and a couple of other things."
Richard: "I think the Giants are going to win this one."
Daniel: "You'd be about the only one in the country who thinks that. The Patriots are going to walk away with a perfect 19-0 record tonight. They haven't lost a game all year."
Oops.
The Giants beat the Patriots with a last-minute touchdown. The final score was 17-14.
If it was a real beer, I'd say that a bottle of Pawtucket Patriot would be a fitting compliment to my Crow platter. Since I can't have a "Pawtucket Pat" to wash it down with, I guess I'll spice it up with some of that picante sauce they make in New York City (but don't tell my friends in San Antonio).
Being that Giants Quarterback Eli Manning was the QB at Ole Miss while I was a student at Mississippi State, I'm prone to saying bad things about him. After this season, I'm learning to get past all that.
Richard: "Are you watching the Super Bowl?"
Daniel: "I'm flipping around between it and a couple of other things."
Richard: "I think the Giants are going to win this one."
Daniel: "You'd be about the only one in the country who thinks that. The Patriots are going to walk away with a perfect 19-0 record tonight. They haven't lost a game all year."
Oops.
The Giants beat the Patriots with a last-minute touchdown. The final score was 17-14.
If it was a real beer, I'd say that a bottle of Pawtucket Patriot would be a fitting compliment to my Crow platter. Since I can't have a "Pawtucket Pat" to wash it down with, I guess I'll spice it up with some of that picante sauce they make in New York City (but don't tell my friends in San Antonio).
Being that Giants Quarterback Eli Manning was the QB at Ole Miss while I was a student at Mississippi State, I'm prone to saying bad things about him. After this season, I'm learning to get past all that.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Of Gas Bags And Gas Rates
I had originally planned to make this post one of my semi-regular "Crap Comment of the Day" features, but I still can't find an exact quote. As such, I'll do the best I can with what I've got.
This year's race for a seat on the Texas Railroad Commission brings us a multi-candidate contest in the March 4 Democratic Primary. Such an occurrence should be blog worthy enough, but it's the less-than-stellar positions espoused by a couple of those candidates that have kept liberal Texas bloggers like me at our respective keyboards.
The most noteworthy position concerns candidate Art Hall. A former member of the San Antonio City Council, Mr. Hall is running for the Railroad Commission while his wife is an employee of San Antonio-based Valero Energy. Here in Texas, the Railroad Commission has nothing to do with railroads (which you'll need to remember as you keep reading). It does, however, regulate the oil and gas industry. In short, Mr. Hall seeks to regulate the very corporation that employs his wife. Most thinking people would see a conflict of interest here. Mr. Hall says that no such conflict exists.
Mr. Hall was reportedly asked the potential conflict during a candidate forum in Decatur. He reportedly answered the question by saying that he contacted Valero to ask about any conflict and they told him there wasn't one. This is why I'm trying to find an exact quote. I can only imagine how silly his answer must have sounded. Imagine asking the people that employ your wife if your regulating them could create a conflict of interest. Now imagine the answer. I think his answer could prove to be an excellent entry for a "Crap Comment of the Day."
Mr. Hall's self-serving and short-sighted answer first came to my attention with of a post written by "McBlogger" on the Burnt Orange Report. You can read the same post at the blog run by "McBlogger" directly. In his (or her) post, "McBlogger" provides us a link to another blog post on the subject. The Bluedaze blog offers additional reporting and commentary on Art Hall's confusion about what exactly constitutes a conflict of interest. The Wise County Messenger also reported Mr. Hall's denial that a conflict exists.
Unfortunately for Mr. Hall, conflicts of interest aren't the only things that seem to escape his full understanding. It is reported by Bluedaze, after a post on PoliTex (a blog written by political reporters for the Fort-Worth Star Telegram), that Mr. Hall is also confused about what exactly the Texas Railroad Commission (officially known as the Railroad Commission of Texas) does.
If you've been paying attention, you know by now that the Railroad Commission has nothing to do with railroads. With this longstanding matter of law in full effect, Mr. Hall proceeded to, according to PoliTex, "list 'railroad safety' as one of the 'issues important to the Railroad Commission of Texas.'" PoliTex reported Mr. Hall's apparent confusion on January 30. Since then, Mr. Hall has removed any mention of it from his website, but it continues to make its way across the blogosphere.
Not to be outdone by Mr. Hall, another of the Democratic candidates for the Railroad Commission decided that he would use Mr. Hall's apparent ignorance of the Railroad Commission's authority to trumpet his own lack of understanding. We turn again to the Bluedaze blog and to the PoliTex blog. It was to PoliTex that candidate Mark Thompson, only two days after Mr. Hall's latest gaffe was exposed, chose to reveal his own insufficient knowledge of the job he wants us to elect him for.
According to PoliTex, Thompson told them "that the Texas Railroad Commission has no control over home heating rates charged inside cities. 'When you think about it, they don’t control rates in the cities' said Thompson." PoliTex corrected Thompson's failed thinking by reporting that "although cities have so-called 'original jurisdiction' over cost-of-service gas rates charged within their boundaries, utilities like Atmos can appeal city decisions to the Texas Railroad Commission. The Railroad Commission conducts hearings, considers evidence and then makes rulings." They've done it before.
To be completely fair, both Mr. Hall and Mr. Thompson seem to be impressive people with impressive credentials and experience. Where they fail to impress me is in asking me to elect them to a position of which they obviously don't have a complete understanding. This only leaves Democratic primary goers with one choice on March 4. That choice is Dale Henry. Mr. Henry has the knowledge and experience necessary to do the job.
According to Vince Leibowitz, a supporter of Mr. Henry who defends him at the Bluedaze blog, "Dale Henry, as a petroleum engineer, worked in oilfield services and in research and development. It is a little different than the association which Mr. Hall's wife has with the oil companies. Also, Dale was an independent subcontractor for the Texas Railroad Commission (working for the Commission and not the oil companies) plugging abandoned wells. It was in this capacity that he got first-hand exposure to many of the failures of the [Railroad Commission]."
I'll be casting my Railroad Commission vote for Dale Henry on March 4. I encourage my fellow Democrats to do the same.
This year's race for a seat on the Texas Railroad Commission brings us a multi-candidate contest in the March 4 Democratic Primary. Such an occurrence should be blog worthy enough, but it's the less-than-stellar positions espoused by a couple of those candidates that have kept liberal Texas bloggers like me at our respective keyboards.
The most noteworthy position concerns candidate Art Hall. A former member of the San Antonio City Council, Mr. Hall is running for the Railroad Commission while his wife is an employee of San Antonio-based Valero Energy. Here in Texas, the Railroad Commission has nothing to do with railroads (which you'll need to remember as you keep reading). It does, however, regulate the oil and gas industry. In short, Mr. Hall seeks to regulate the very corporation that employs his wife. Most thinking people would see a conflict of interest here. Mr. Hall says that no such conflict exists.
Mr. Hall was reportedly asked the potential conflict during a candidate forum in Decatur. He reportedly answered the question by saying that he contacted Valero to ask about any conflict and they told him there wasn't one. This is why I'm trying to find an exact quote. I can only imagine how silly his answer must have sounded. Imagine asking the people that employ your wife if your regulating them could create a conflict of interest. Now imagine the answer. I think his answer could prove to be an excellent entry for a "Crap Comment of the Day."
Mr. Hall's self-serving and short-sighted answer first came to my attention with of a post written by "McBlogger" on the Burnt Orange Report. You can read the same post at the blog run by "McBlogger" directly. In his (or her) post, "McBlogger" provides us a link to another blog post on the subject. The Bluedaze blog offers additional reporting and commentary on Art Hall's confusion about what exactly constitutes a conflict of interest. The Wise County Messenger also reported Mr. Hall's denial that a conflict exists.
Unfortunately for Mr. Hall, conflicts of interest aren't the only things that seem to escape his full understanding. It is reported by Bluedaze, after a post on PoliTex (a blog written by political reporters for the Fort-Worth Star Telegram), that Mr. Hall is also confused about what exactly the Texas Railroad Commission (officially known as the Railroad Commission of Texas) does.
If you've been paying attention, you know by now that the Railroad Commission has nothing to do with railroads. With this longstanding matter of law in full effect, Mr. Hall proceeded to, according to PoliTex, "list 'railroad safety' as one of the 'issues important to the Railroad Commission of Texas.'" PoliTex reported Mr. Hall's apparent confusion on January 30. Since then, Mr. Hall has removed any mention of it from his website, but it continues to make its way across the blogosphere.
Not to be outdone by Mr. Hall, another of the Democratic candidates for the Railroad Commission decided that he would use Mr. Hall's apparent ignorance of the Railroad Commission's authority to trumpet his own lack of understanding. We turn again to the Bluedaze blog and to the PoliTex blog. It was to PoliTex that candidate Mark Thompson, only two days after Mr. Hall's latest gaffe was exposed, chose to reveal his own insufficient knowledge of the job he wants us to elect him for.
According to PoliTex, Thompson told them "that the Texas Railroad Commission has no control over home heating rates charged inside cities. 'When you think about it, they don’t control rates in the cities' said Thompson." PoliTex corrected Thompson's failed thinking by reporting that "although cities have so-called 'original jurisdiction' over cost-of-service gas rates charged within their boundaries, utilities like Atmos can appeal city decisions to the Texas Railroad Commission. The Railroad Commission conducts hearings, considers evidence and then makes rulings." They've done it before.
To be completely fair, both Mr. Hall and Mr. Thompson seem to be impressive people with impressive credentials and experience. Where they fail to impress me is in asking me to elect them to a position of which they obviously don't have a complete understanding. This only leaves Democratic primary goers with one choice on March 4. That choice is Dale Henry. Mr. Henry has the knowledge and experience necessary to do the job.
According to Vince Leibowitz, a supporter of Mr. Henry who defends him at the Bluedaze blog, "Dale Henry, as a petroleum engineer, worked in oilfield services and in research and development. It is a little different than the association which Mr. Hall's wife has with the oil companies. Also, Dale was an independent subcontractor for the Texas Railroad Commission (working for the Commission and not the oil companies) plugging abandoned wells. It was in this capacity that he got first-hand exposure to many of the failures of the [Railroad Commission]."
I'll be casting my Railroad Commission vote for Dale Henry on March 4. I encourage my fellow Democrats to do the same.
Quote Of The Day
Our anything-but-daily "Quote of the Day" feature returns today with a dispatch from the latest front in the ongoing culture war.
Here's the quote:
"Is this bill contrary to God, contrary to marriage? And the answer is no. Not a single married couple in this state will get divorced because of this bill. Not a single couple that is engaged ... will cancel that wedding as a result of this bill. Not a single straight person will become gay as a result of this bill.''
Those words belong to New Mexico State Rep. Antonio "Moe'' Maestas, an Albuquerque Democrat, and were published in a report by the Albuquerque Journal. Maestas was talking about a Domestic Partnerships bill passed by the New Mexico House of Representatives on Thursday. According to the Journal report, "the House approved the measure on a mostly party-line 33-31 vote. Two Republicans supported the bill and seven Democrats opposed it."
Whether or not the bill was contrary to God is a question I'll leave to theologians and Bible thumpers. Speaking as someone increasingly disinterested in religion, I'm starting to get really tired of arguing about the opinion of someone we can't see or hear. I think the larger point here was made by the rest of the quote.
Opponents of gay marriage and domestic partnerships continue to cry that such arrangements will upend the "sanctity" of "traditional" marriage, yet they can't explain how. If gay marriage is going to cause your husband or wife to leave you and marry somebody else, you probably shouldn't have married that person in the first place. Otherwise, I fail to see how gay people getting equal legal recognition of what they're already doing will affect anybody else's marriage in any way.
Here's the quote:
"Is this bill contrary to God, contrary to marriage? And the answer is no. Not a single married couple in this state will get divorced because of this bill. Not a single couple that is engaged ... will cancel that wedding as a result of this bill. Not a single straight person will become gay as a result of this bill.''
Those words belong to New Mexico State Rep. Antonio "Moe'' Maestas, an Albuquerque Democrat, and were published in a report by the Albuquerque Journal. Maestas was talking about a Domestic Partnerships bill passed by the New Mexico House of Representatives on Thursday. According to the Journal report, "the House approved the measure on a mostly party-line 33-31 vote. Two Republicans supported the bill and seven Democrats opposed it."
Whether or not the bill was contrary to God is a question I'll leave to theologians and Bible thumpers. Speaking as someone increasingly disinterested in religion, I'm starting to get really tired of arguing about the opinion of someone we can't see or hear. I think the larger point here was made by the rest of the quote.
Opponents of gay marriage and domestic partnerships continue to cry that such arrangements will upend the "sanctity" of "traditional" marriage, yet they can't explain how. If gay marriage is going to cause your husband or wife to leave you and marry somebody else, you probably shouldn't have married that person in the first place. Otherwise, I fail to see how gay people getting equal legal recognition of what they're already doing will affect anybody else's marriage in any way.
