NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't want to start another morality thread (I just voted that those are my least favorite when it comes to thread civility and contentiousness), but my home state's supreme court upheld the state's gay marriage ban on a 5-4 vote.

The actual ruling:

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/northwest/pdf/gaymarriageruling.pdf

I take for granted what most people don't know about Washington. The state is purple. Even the traditional division between the West Side (Seattle, Tacoma, Microsoft, Starbucks, Boeing, etc.) and the East Side (Spokane, Yakima, apples, wheat, grapes, the Columbia Basin) is more like a Georges Seurat pointilist work than a clearly-defined Red-Blue split. Where there are urban concentrations, universities and the like, the purple is more Blue, and where there's more agriculture, ranching and the like, the purple is more Red.

Public opinion reflects this in that while full-on gay marriage (alla Massachusetts) is nixed in each poll, Civil Unions like those already in place in Vermont, California and Connecticut is within the margin of error. The latest Flash poll of 500 Washington residents has it at 48% APPROVE, 47% DISAPPROVE and 5% NOT SURE.

This was never going to be a home run here in my home state because of this mixture of purple everywhere. Bellingham, for example, is in the northwest part of the state near Canada and is home to the notoriously hippified Western Washington University. However, the town of Lynden, a mere 10 miles east, is so conservative as to have banned dancing (alla the movie Footloose). Seattle, a noted liberal stronghold has conservative Bellevue right across Lake Washington. Likewise, Walla Walla, a penitentiary town and agricultural center features Whitman College, which lends some liberalism to the region. Same goes for very conservative Ellensburg, home of Central Washington University.

My home county, Snohomish County, leans mildly liberal overall, being just north of Seattle's King County. But there's a strong secessionist/militia movement looking to form its own county of the eastern (and far more rural) two-thirds (nominally called "Freedom County").

My point in mentioning all of this is that the issue is never cut-and dried, and judging an entire state based on what nine jurists decide is unfair. Personally, I'm for gay marriage, but I believe Civil Unions might stand a much better chance of passing here. And I think it's time the gay lobby recognize that and take the advances they can while they can.

It's complex, it's thorny and it's...well...purple.

Thanks for reading.

I don't want to start another morality thread (I just voted that those are my least favorite when it comes to thread civility and contentiousness), but my home state's supreme court upheld the state's gay marriage ban on a 5-4 vote.

The actual ruling: (snip)

The news makes it sound worse than it is. Basically, the court said they don't have the capacity to change the law in the state, so they weren't going to. But they left it wide open for the legislature or populace to change the law.

For people complaining about activist judges that go changing laws and such, this should be a dream ruling.

I don't want to start another morality thread (I just voted that those are my least favorite when it comes to thread civility and contentiousness), but my home state's supreme court upheld the state's gay marriage ban on a 5-4 vote.

The actual ruling:

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/northwest/pdf/gaymarriageruling.pdf

I take for granted what most people don't know about Washington. The state is purple. Even the traditional division between the West Side (Seattle, Tacoma, Microsoft, Starbucks, Boeing, etc.) and the East Side (Spokane, Yakima, apples, wheat, grapes, the Columbia Basin) is more like a Georges Seurat pointilist work than a clearly-defined Red-Blue split. Where there are urban concentrations, universities and the like, the purple is more Blue, and where there's more agriculture, ranching and the like, the purple is more Red.

Public opinion reflects this in that while full-on gay marriage (alla Massachusetts) is nixed in each poll, Civil Unions like those already in place in Vermont, California and Connecticut is within the margin of error. The latest Flash poll of 500 Washington residents has it at 48% APPROVE, 47% DISAPPROVE and 5% NOT SURE.

This was never going to be a home run here in my home state because of this mixture of purple everywhere. Bellingham, for example, is in the northwest part of the state near Canada and is home to the notoriously hippified Western Washington University. However, the town of Lynden, a mere 10 miles east, is so conservative as to have banned dancing (alla the movie Footloose). Seattle, a noted liberal stronghold has conservative Bellevue right across Lake Washington. Likewise, Walla Walla, a penitentiary town and agricultural center features Whitman College, which lends some liberalism to the region. Same goes for very conservative Ellensburg, home of Central Washington University.

My home county, Snohomish County, leans mildly liberal overall, being just north of Seattle's King County. But there's a strong secessionist/militia movement looking to form its own county of the eastern (and far more rural) two-thirds (nominally called "Freedom County").

My point in mentioning all of this is that the issue is never cut-and dried, and judging an entire state based on what nine jurists decide is unfair. Personally, I'm for gay marriage, but I believe Civil Unions might stand a much better chance of passing here. And I think it's time the gay lobby recognize that and take the advances they can while they can.

It's complex, it's thorny and it's...well...purple.

Thanks for reading.
A well-reasoned and balanced post. :)

My point in mentioning all of this is that the issue is never cut-and dried, and judging an entire state based on what nine jurists decide is unfair.
Who would judge on entire state on a marginal issue like gay marriage?

Who would judge on entire state on a marginal issue like gay marriage?
You would be surprised. I can't say I know figures, but I wonder how much tourism Massachusetts lost when its legislators enacted gay marriage, and whether it was more or less than what was gained in any gay marriage influx.

The news makes it sound worse than it is. Basically, the court said they don't have the capacity to change the law in the state, so they weren't going to. But they left it wide open for the legislature or populace to change the law.

For people complaining about activist judges that go changing laws and such, this should be a dream ruling.
Yes, it is. It clearly delineates the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law, versus the role of the legislature - making the law. Otherwise any particular law, whether you favor or oppose it, can be changed at the whim of any judge.

The news makes it sound worse than it is. Basically, the court said they don't have the capacity to change the law in the state, so they weren't going to. But they left it wide open for the legislature or populace to change the law.

For people complaining about activist judges that go changing laws and such, this should be a dream ruling.
That is a very good point.

It's more like the court stepped aside and told voters, "your call."

I suppose I posted like I did because I was originally angry and when I post angry, I do my best to blunt that and get all equivocal. In the end, the SCOW did exactly what it should have done to appease any opposition looking to brand them as activists AND preserve hope for those looking to enact unions. Under current law, full-on fay marriage isn't an option, barring initiative/referendum repeals of the law.

I suggest they go for civil unions first, but that's me.

I think it was an appropriate ruling.

Now it is back in the hands of the people, and hopefully, before too very long, the mood will swing back on this issue and the people will vote in gay marriage.

You would be surprised. I can't say I know figures, but I wonder how much tourism Massachusetts lost when its legislators enacted gay marriage, and whether it was more or less than what was gained in any gay marriage influx.
I would guess that any change would be negligible or in the form of increased tourism from gay couples going to Massachussetts to get married. It's not like Massachussetts has been a hub of Dobsonite travelers in recent years anyway.

This thread is inherently biased between Republicans and Democrats! :p
C'mon, no libertarian-leaning portion of Washington?

I don't want to start another morality thread (I just voted that those are my least favorite when it comes to thread civility and contentiousness), but my home state's supreme court upheld the state's gay marriage ban on a 5-4 vote.

The actual ruling:

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/northwest/pdf/gaymarriageruling.pdf

I take for granted what most people don't know about Washington. The state is purple. Even the traditional division between the West Side (Seattle, Tacoma, Microsoft, Starbucks, Boeing, etc.) and the East Side (Spokane, Yakima, apples, wheat, grapes, the Columbia Basin) is more like a Georges Seurat pointilist work than a clearly-defined Red-Blue split. Where there are urban concentrations, universities and the like, the purple is more Blue, and where there's more agriculture, ranching and the like, the purple is more Red.

Public opinion reflects this in that while full-on gay marriage (alla Massachusetts) is nixed in each poll, Civil Unions like those already in place in Vermont, California and Connecticut is within the margin of error. The latest Flash poll of 500 Washington residents has it at 48% APPROVE, 47% DISAPPROVE and 5% NOT SURE.

This was never going to be a home run here in my home state because of this mixture of purple everywhere. Bellingham, for example, is in the northwest part of the state near Canada and is home to the notoriously hippified Western Washington University. However, the town of Lynden, a mere 10 miles east, is so conservative as to have banned dancing (alla the movie Footloose). Seattle, a noted liberal stronghold has conservative Bellevue right across Lake Washington. Likewise, Walla Walla, a penitentiary town and agricultural center features Whitman College, which lends some liberalism to the region. Same goes for very conservative Ellensburg, home of Central Washington University.

My home county, Snohomish County, leans mildly liberal overall, being just north of Seattle's King County. But there's a strong secessionist/militia movement looking to form its own county of the eastern (and far more rural) two-thirds (nominally called "Freedom County").

My point in mentioning all of this is that the issue is never cut-and dried, and judging an entire state based on what nine jurists decide is unfair. Personally, I'm for gay marriage, but I believe Civil Unions might stand a much better chance of passing here. And I think it's time the gay lobby recognize that and take the advances they can while they can.

It's complex, it's thorny and it's...well...purple.

Thanks for reading.

I did hear about this. If the people who do not like the decision wish, they can send it to the Supreme Court of the United States. That is within their rights to do. I am in support of civil unions and will support any such law that recognizes it.

Really every state is a shade of purple, probably some more mixed than Washington. Washington really is a pretty solidly blue state because even though a county map of the state would show mostly red, the densely populated areas are so blue that they push the whole state democrat. (I'm from Pasco, Wa)

Truth be told Washington by area is Red. Bright red. The small highly concentrated enclaves where most the people live are a brilliant blue. And the red people freaking hate it. They feel strongly on some kook issue their neighbors feel the same way, and in fact so does everyone as far as the eye can see. Until the costal cities from over the Cascades get their say. The 3D voting maps from 2004 were just awesome. The notion that all the wealth and people are so highly concentrated in such a small area isn't something the red people can effectively imagine, it screwes with their truthiness and makes their gut think the blue people are cheating.

I did hear about this. If the people who do not like the decision wish, they can send it to the Supreme Court of the United States. That is within their rights to do. I am in support of civil unions and will support any such law that recognizes it.
SCOTUS, if it were asked, should refuse to hear the case, as it is clearly outside its jurisdiction. But with the current set of assclowns running the show, I can't say that would actually happen--Scalia would gladly toss aside his states rights rhetoric for a chance to slam gays after the hissy fit he threw when SCOTUS decided Lawrence v Texas. If he had a chance to make the US even more repressive sexually, you can bet your ass he'd take it.

SCOTUS, if it were asked, should refuse to hear the case, as it is clearly outside its jurisdiction.

Respectfully The Nazz, how is outside its jurisdiction?

But with the current set of assclowns running the show,

Please sir that this is not proper decorum for proper debate calling those in authority over us names.

I can't say that would actually happen--Scalia would gladly toss aside his states rights rhetoric for a chance to slam gays after the hissy fit he threw when SCOTUS decided Lawrence v Texas. If he had a chance to make the US even more repressive sexually, you can bet your ass he'd take it.

That is a possibility but that still leaves 8 members of the court who could decide to hear it. Remember The Nazz, all you need is 4 people to agree to hear the case.

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50.gif
GASP!

This thread is inherently biased between Republicans and Democrats! :p
C'mon, no libertarian-leaning portion of Washington?

There really aren't enough of us Libs, here in Washington, or in any other state, to really make a difference in the political landscape.

There really aren't enough of us Libs, here in Washington, or in any other state, to really make a difference in the political landscape.

So what'll you guys be then? Green? Infrared? Plaid?

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50.gif
GASP!
So, the moral of the poster is that, with the exception of most of Hawaii and a few other oddballs in the center of the country:

- Higher population density areas are more blue than red.
- Lower population density areas are more red than blue.

So, the moral of the poster is that, with the exception of most of Hawaii and a few other oddballs in the center of the country:

- Higher population density areas are more blue than red.
- Lower population density areas are more red than blue.

Yup.

There really aren't enough of us Libs, here in Washington, or in any other state, to really make a difference in the political landscape yet.
Corrected in bold. ;) Get out, speak loud, vote early, vote often. They'll go up as more people see that essentially

lim[x->0] (Democrat - Republican) = 0.

This thread is inherently biased between Republicans and Democrats! :p
C'mon, no libertarian-leaning portion of Washington?
Plenty, but not organized enough or collectively brave enough to "not vote against" either the Elephant or Donkey. The fear of "throwing your vote away", which is about the stupidest statement I've ever heard in regard to an election in a nominally free society, is great here...greater than the desire for a third party.

Washington would be an ideal place for a third party, but damned if I know which one would work.

So, the moral of the poster is that, with the exception of most of Hawaii and a few other oddballs in the center of the country:

- Higher population density areas are more blue than red.
- Lower population density areas are more red than blue.

Yup.

Dang, I didn't need a degree from Princeton to see that. Give me my diploma!

Truth be told Washington by area is Red. Bright red. The small highly concentrated enclaves where most the people live are a brilliant blue. And the red people freaking hate it. They feel strongly on some kook issue their neighbors feel the same way, and in fact so does everyone as far as the eye can see. Until the costal cities from over the Cascades get their say. The 3D voting maps from 2004 were just awesome. The notion that all the wealth and people are so highly concentrated in such a small area isn't something the red people can effectively imagine, it screwes with their truthiness and makes their gut think the blue people are cheating.
Exactly. It's been that way for as long as I can remember, and I've lived in Lake Stevens (Red) and Everett (Blue) for a total of 27 years.

(I'm from Pasco, Wa)
Hey, Tri-Citian!

Stopped melting yet? I love that area, and spent many happy days with friends from Columbia Basin College.

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50.gif
GASP!
Cool map -- I'll assume that's a county delineation. Makes me wonder what a precinct delineation would look like.

Respectfully The Nazz, how is outside its jurisdiction?The only way it can become a federal case is if DOMA is overturned, because that Act basically gave the individual states carte blanche to determine how marriages are defined in their states and to refuse to recognize marriages from other states. Now, I happen to think that DOMA is unconstitutional in that it's a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the 14th Amendment, but good luck getting these assclowns to overturn that one.

Please sir that this is not proper decorum for proper debate calling those in authority over us names.Welcome to NS General. My name is The Nazz, and I'm well known for insulting people in government as often as possible.

That is a possibility but that still leaves 8 members of the court who could decide to hear it. Remember The Nazz, all you need is 4 people to agree to hear the case.
I know, but the thing you have to remember is that of those other 8, only Alito really gets close to Scalia's hatred of teh gay--maybe Thomas as well, but he's an even more rigid ideologue and would likely fall on the states rights argument. The rest don't really see an upside to picking at an open sore--they'll leave it to Washington state and the others as long as they can.

Plenty, but not organized enough or collectively brave enough to "not vote against" either the Elephant or Donkey. The fear of "throwing your vote away", which is about the stupidest statement I've ever heard in regard to an election in a nominally free society, is great here...greater than the desire for a third party.

It's not all that stupid really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post#Disadvantages

*snip*
Welcome to NS General. My name is The Nazz, and I'm well known for insulting people in government as often as possible.
*snip*

And justifiably so -- you're damned good at it. ;)

I'm with you on DOMA vs. Amendment 14.

Seems "states rights" is elastic indeed -- it stretches over whatever the Court wants it to stretch over. The proof is in how inconsistently it's been applied and the nature of the exceptions.

The only way it can become a federal case is if DOMA is overturned, because that Act basically gave the individual states carte blanche to determine how marriages are defined in their states and to refuse to recognize marriages from other states. Now, I happen to think that DOMA is unconstitutional in that it's a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the 14th Amendment, but good luck getting these assclowns to overturn that one.

We all have problems with the Supreme Court. I have my own issues with them which I tend to keep to myself for the time being. I can see what you are saying though and you do make perfect sense in regards to DOMA. I do not agree that it violates the Constitution but that is my opinion but yea. I can see why this could be outside their jurisdiction.

Welcome to NS General. My name is The Nazz, and I'm well known for insulting people in government as often as possible.

It is a pleasure to meet you The Nazz and thanks for welcoming me.

I know, but the thing you have to remember is that of those other 8, only Alito really gets close to Scalia's hatred of teh gay--maybe Thomas as well, but he's an even more rigid ideologue and would likely fall on the states rights argument. The rest don't really see an upside to picking at an open sore--they'll leave it to Washington state and the others as long as they can.

At least its an honest opinion. That's always nice to see and an opinion without to much mudslinging. I've been seeing alot of that in my brief time here. Its sad to see :(

Why all the fighting? (http://pedrolaguna.wordpress.com/files/2006/02/soiber%20jesus.png)

I wonder how these DOMA acts can stand up considering marriage is an interstate issue, which makes it the domain of the Federal government?

Also, since the Federal government gives tax benefits to married couples, doesn't that further class it under the protections of the 14th Amendment?

The only way it can become a federal case is if DOMA is overturned, because that Act basically gave the individual states carte blanche to determine how marriages are defined in their states and to refuse to recognize marriages from other states. Now, I happen to think that DOMA is unconstitutional in that it's a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the 14th Amendment, but good luck getting these assclowns to overturn that one.

You are possibly the only progressive I have ever seen admit that. Which is the reason many conservatives push for the Marriage Amendment, to avoid just that scenario.

On this issue, most liberals take the normally conservative view that the states should decide, while conservatives take the normally liberal view that the federal government should decide.

Hey, Tri-Citian!

Stopped melting yet? I love that area, and spent many happy days with friends from Columbia Basin College.

I went to CBC a few years back. Fun times.

It's starting to cool down a bit finally! 112 degrees a few days ago. But hey, at least it's a "dry heat" (though at some point, hot is just hot).

Most of my friends from WSU are from various places around Seattle just because there's so many more of you crazy west-siders. The Tri-Cities are growing like crazy, though. I saw in the newspaper that the population has doubled in 12 years (it'll be interesting to see, as it grows, if it stays red or turns more bluish).

You are possibly the only progressive I have ever seen admit that. Which is the reason many conservatives push for the Marriage Amendment, to avoid just that scenario.

On this issue, most liberals take the normally conservative view that the states should decide, while conservatives take the normally liberal view that the federal government should decide.

Then you have liberals who agree that the federal government should decide and conservatives who think that the states should decide. You will always have an odd ball mixture of people who will disagree on just about anything but agree on a few things.

So, the moral of the poster is that, with the exception of most of Hawaii and a few other oddballs in the center of the country:

- Higher population density areas are more blue than red.
- Lower population density areas are more red than blue.

additionally, in most places there is a direct relation between how 'red' a county is and how quickly it is being depopulated. that bright red belt in the great plains has seen it's counties lose up to 45% of their populations over the past decade.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/IMAGES/popmap.gif
percent change 1990-2000

additionally, in most places there is a direct relation between how 'red' a county is and how quickly it is being depopulated. that bright red belt in the great plains has seen it's counties lose up to 45% of their populations over the past decade.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/IMAGES/popmap.gif
percent change 1990-2000

Bush carried 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in America. He recieved 50 million votes in 2000 and 62 million in 2004.....more than 3 million of whom were Dermocrats.

Truth be told Washington by area is Red.

too bad for the crazies that desolate hills don't get to vote

additionally, in most places there is a direct relation between how 'red' a county is and how quickly it is being depopulated. that bright red belt in the great plains has seen it's counties lose up to 45% of their populations over the past decade.

It's a combination of economics and politics; those places are economically stagnant and don't offer the kind of opportunities that larger cities have. And, of course, you can't have a strong economy without a well-educated and innovative workforce; generally, the better educated workforce tends to be more liberal in its politics so it might not be coincidental that the most conservative places tend to have the weakest economies.

Of course, some very blue areas have terrible economies; I think it's resistance to change more than just liberal/conservative that affects the economy. Of course, the left does tend to embrace change more readily than the right...

too bad for the crazies that desolate hills don't get to vote
"the crazies" being people who vote Republican? I find that insulting.

Bush carried 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in America. He recieved 50 million votes in 2000 and 62 million in 2004.....more than 3 million of whom were Dermocrats.

which contradicts what i said how, exactly? you seem to have a habit of not actually responding to what is said.

"the crazies" being people who vote Republican? I find that insulting.

good

so, you ever lived in idaho or eastern washington? i have.

It's a combination of economics and politics; those places are economically stagnant and don't offer the kind of opportunities that larger cities have.

And, of course, you can't have a strong economy without a well-educated and innovative workforce; generally, the better educated workforce tends to be more liberal in its politics so it might not be coincidental that the most conservative places tend to have the weakest economies.

Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in America. :rolleyes:

which contradicts what i said how, exactly? you seem to have a habit of not actually responding to what is said.

lets try it again...(sigh)
"additionally, in most places there is a direct relation between how 'red' a county is and how quickly it is being depopulated."

Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in America.

good

so, you ever lived in idaho or eastern washington? i have.

I lived most of my life in Alabama. :D

Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in America. :rolleyes:

Not all conservatives or Republicans are alike. Protectionist Republicans are a great example of the kind that will produce a decaying economy while free-trade Democrats will produce a great one, or vice versa.

Not all conservatives or Republicans are alike. Protectionist Republicans are a great example of the kind that will produce a decaying economy while free-trade Democrats will produce a great one, or vice versa.

On the local level? I agree with you on the national level, but I seriously doubt the local level is affected by what side of the political spectrum they are on when it comes to international trade. Maybe I am not understanding you correctly.

lets try it again...(sigh)
"additionally, in most places there is a direct relation between how 'red' a county is and how quickly it is being depopulated."

Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in America.

mere winning has nothing to do with it. winning results in purple, depopulation results in red.

and the actually important thing in fast growing counties (many of which now have the population of a small college, btw) would be trends rather than the results of a single election.

On the local level? I agree with you on the national level, but I seriously doubt the local level is affected by what side of the political spectrum they are on when it comes to international trade. Maybe I am not understanding you correctly.

A good example would be blocking, taxing, or intentionally creating a bureaucratic mess to try and stop a major retailer or foreign company from setting up operations or from buying an intrastate company.

Another would be intentionally avoiding the use of foreign companies' products or contractors on state projects regardless of cost or quality, and another would be subsidies and tax credits to local industries regardless of competitiveness.

Not all conservatives or Republicans are alike.

to take the illinois example - the fast growing, still republican leaning, counties surrounding chicago vote for much more tolerable republicans than the crazies from downstate whose populations are stagnating or declining.

lets look at the state level. Here are the states that went to either Bush or Kerry by less than 10 points:
Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon ( 10 of the 19 states Kerry won)

Virginia, Florida, Arkansas, ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New mexico, and Nevada.. ( 9 of the 31 states he won)

Kerry won 9 states by more than 10%
Bush won 22 states by more than 10%.

The electoral value of the states that kerry won 10% plus is 147
the electoral value of the states that Bush won 10% plus is 180.

Combined with the fact that the less developed states that Bush won all of...are also the fasting growing white middle class populations ( the population that votes) bad times for the Democrats will continue on the national level. Why do I say continue? Because they have only had one Presidential candidate break 50% of the popular vote since 1964...and that was Jimmy Carter in 1976...who got 50.5% 2 years after...watergate.

A good example would be blocking, taxing, or intentionally creating a bureaucratic mess to try and stop a major retailer or foreign company from setting up operations or from buying an intrastate company.

Another would be intentionally avoiding the use of foreign companies' products or contractors on state projects regardless of cost or quality, and another would be subsidies and tax credits to local industries regardless of competitiveness.

Good point.

to take the illinois example - the fast growing, still republican leaning, counties surrounding chicago vote for much more tolerable republicans than the crazies from downstate whose populations are stagnating or declining.

do you have figures to back that up?

do you have figures to back that up?

figures that their populations are stagnating or declining, or figures that suburban republicans are less crazy than the crazies that the downstaters vote for?

So, the moral of the poster is that, with the exception of most of Hawaii and a few other oddballs in the center of the country:

- Higher population density areas are more blue than red.
- Lower population density areas are more red than blue.

Reds like to be surrounded by cow shit while blues prefer bullshit apparantly.

You are possibly the only progressive I have ever seen admit that. Which is the reason many conservatives push for the Marriage Amendment, to avoid just that scenario.

On this issue, most liberals take the normally conservative view that the states should decide, while conservatives take the normally liberal view that the federal government should decide.Most liberals and progressives I know absoluely hate DOMA, and curse Bill Clinton to this day for signing it for precisely that reason--that it's unconstitutional. As for the federal marriage amendment, I know that many conservative activists are pushing it because they fear DOMA will fall if it's ever challenged, but the politicians are doing it for a more cynical reason--it gets their psycho base out to vote, because nothing motivates those folks more, it seems, than waving the bloody fetus or fag-bashing.

I don't want to start another morality thread (I just voted that those are my least favorite when it comes to thread civility and contentiousness), but my home state's supreme court upheld the state's gay marriage ban on a 5-4 vote.

*SNIP*
Thanks for reading.
Meh, I dont really care. If thats what the people want and vote for, than thats what I think should be law.

But dont ask me, I'm a proponent of Direct Democracy.:)

to take the illinois example - the fast growing, still republican leaning, counties surrounding chicago vote for much more tolerable republicans than the crazies from downstate whose populations are stagnating or declining.

Businesses don't like extremists, plain and simple. Whether left or right, they're scared of anyone who could threaten their growth or their ability to market their product; whether it's a small business, a partnership, or a multinational corporation none of them like ideologues who place politics before sensible leadership.

I don't think it's coincidental that the economy performs the best under the most reasonable and rational polticians, whether they are at the local, state, or federal level.

The state is purple.

It's complex, it's thorny and it's...well...purple.



Most states are.... in very few (if any) states, does one party actually get more than 60% of the vote. Don't let the pretty election night maps fool you. It's one of the distortions of a winner take all system. The whole country is purple.