ELECTION: The ballot in Richmond — Vote or Emigrate
by Ross Catrow
By now everyone knows George Allen hates black people called some guy “macaca” and Jim Web hates women said a thing when he was younger. But do you know who is running for the 5th District City Council spot? I do, but I live there. Anyway, here is an incomplete list of things/people on the ballot this November 7th for your studying pleasure. Vote or emigrate.
US Senators
This is the big race, the clash of the TITANS, where the men become boys and the boys become little girls. What we’ve got here is an incumbent who certainly appears to be a racist but perhaps is just a misunderstood good ol’ boy (from SoCal. I shit you not), an ex-Military stick in the mud, and an old lady who’s platform is trains. When she is for monorails, let me know.
Constitutional Amendments
There are three question on this year’s ballot. The big one we all know about: “Gays, what’s with ‘em?” But as ballot questions can be misleading it’ll be good for you to know as much as you can going in to the elections.
Ballot Issue #1
Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state: “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
Full text and explanation here, PDF unfortunately.
It may interest you that under current Virginia law same-sex marriage *and* civil unions are prohibited. Personally, regardless of your feelings on “the homosexuals,” I’d vote against this amendment. I don’t feel like the “Bill of Rights” is a place to include limits on freedoms. But whatev, just make sure you read that full text and explanation.
Ballot Issue #2
Shall Section 14 of Article IV of the Constitution of Virginia be amended by deleting the provision that prohibits the incorporation of churches, a provision that was ruled to be unconstitutional and therefore now is obsolete?
Full text and explanation here, PDF unfortunately.
Here is a good snippet on the amendment. If I read this right, I think that this particular section of the Constitution of Virginia has been declared (federally) unconstitutional. I think this is more of a house keeping amendment? The less law the better, right?
Ballot Issue #3
Shall Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize legislation to permit localities to provide a partial exemption from real property taxes for real estate
Full text and explanation here, PDF unfortunately.
BOOOOORIIIINNNNGGGG. Currently in Virginia you can get tax exemptions if you rehabilitate old structures in sketchy neighborhoods (simplification). I’m pretty sure this amendment would allow you to get tax exemptions on new structures in sketchy neighborhoods.
US House of Representatives
District 3
Just so you know if I don’t know anything about any of the candidates or if a candidate is running unopposed I always write myself in.
District 7
ZZzzzzzz.
Otherz
There will be two other things to vote for: City Council and School Board. Most are running unopposed (so I may be your new School Board member!). Two interesting races: Council District 1 and 5.
In the First District Paul Goldman, who previously advised The Mayor, is running against four other candidates. If you live out in the First District (which is basically Staunton) Style Weekly has an article on that race.
In the Fifth District E. M. “Marty” Jewell is running against Silver Persinger. This isn’t really that interesting except that Silver is a Socialist. IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. But seriously, the dude is advertising on RVABlogs so he’s a good guy in my book. Also ol’ Marty, from what I have seen of him on the public access City Council meeting show, doesn’t really have much of a clue about what goes on down there.
So there you go. A big list of things/people to research and learn about before November 7th. If you need to figure out who is on your ballot use the State Board of Elections Where Do I Vote tool.
Good luck and good voting!
why do you think I live in Staunton?
I mean dude, First District is WESTTTTT.
hey i live in the 1st district. are you talking about something else?
+1fp.
Yeah we are talking about city council districts rather than congressional districts.
to find out more info about your reps, which I think Bobby Scott’s pretty cool, you can go to Project Vote Smart, you put in your nine digit zip code (of if you don’t know that, they can find it for you) they can tell you who’s running, what their voting record looks like, their approval ratings from different organizations (i.e. organized labor, NOW, NAACP, or the NRA), which district you’re in and other cool stuff. They even have addresses for your reps local offices, email addresses, and sometimes their office phone numbers. I recommend you check it out.
also, the first ballot issue would mean that same sex marriages in other states would not be recognized by the commonwealth of Viginia. So, not only can a legal same sex marriage not be performed here, but one performed in, say Boston, wouldn’t be legal here either. Reciprocity? what? What’s that?
Here in VA we’re taking our bigotry to a whole new level. We’re not content telling just our gays we don’t like them, we need to tell all the gays everywhere they aren’t welcome. Palang a dang dang y’all!
there’s already the federal “defense of marriage act” which says other states don’t have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, despite the full faith and credit clause in the us constitution, so i don’t see how this would affect that at all, since we already don’t recognize those marriages.
and if that law didnt exist (or if it were tested in the courts and found failing, as it very well might), the FFaC clause in the us constitution would override any clause in the state constitution, *forcing* recognition, and also rendering that kind of a non-issue, just the other way.
either way, i don’t think it is much of an issue in that respect.
i am not a lawyer.
Isn’t there precedent for certain laws getting an exemption to the FFaCC? I feel like back in the “day” an interracial couple could get married in a Maryland and then not have their marriage recognized by Virginia.
Ok sweet, I wasn’t making it up. Read here under “public policy exception”.
So here are things I think: 1) DoMA would probably be found unconstitutional if the SCotUS ever got around to testing it and 2) I think they probably don’t want to test it because even if it was found unconstitutional, the Public Policy exemption to the FFaCC would allow states (and Commonwealths) to continue not recognizing same-sex marriage.
The ‘pedia says this has been invoked in cases involving polygamy. I would be interested to read this specific case if anyone finds it.
you guys are going to be pissed when vermont makes it legal to marry 5 year olds or trees and then they all flock to virginia to work at capital one and we have to watch 50 year olds making out with kids and pay for tree beetle infestation with our health insurance.
it think RVAkid’s been watching too much mtv, where thinking that someone is doing something wrong = being a bigot. i don’t agree with gay marriage and i don’t consider myself a bigot. maybe your intolerance and making fun of people who oppose gay marriage is bigotry? in any case, calling someone (or an entire state) a bigot isn’t really a good argument for anything.
again, it’s up to the people to decide what they want to stand for, so go out and vote (which is what this thread all about). and if the people decide to be bigots, just move to california where anything goes.
First we have to decide why it is that one would be against gay marriage. Given the arguments that I have recieved so far this whole amendment is
a. redundant, so it doesn’t really matter anyway. I think this is just a feather in someone’s cap
b. related to the faith of a specific group of individuals
As far as recognizing marriages to trees, horses or five year olds… I honestly do not feel that the state has a case to recognize or not recognize any marriages. It believe that a union between people should be kept civil and there is really no reason why the state needs to be involved at any level at any point.
So to adress a few points on Same Sex marriage:
1. legalization will destroy the traditional family.
I don’t think we have to worry about that with divorce rates at 53%
2. Children will suffer most because gay relationships are most often polyamorous
A committed couple, regardless of gender issues is still a committed couple. There are incalcuable examples of this world wide. Straight people have polyamorous relationships too
3. Adoption laws will become obsolete.
Well, if you have to be in a loving committed relationship in order to adopt a child, why must they be of two different sexes. Studies have shown that kids growing up in a same sex home, socialize normally and “gayness” doesn’t wear off on them.
4. The health care system will stagger and collapse. All these new dependents will cause health care costs to rise. It’s a good possibility, but I don’t have any kids and I have to pay taxes for them to go to school. I have to pay increased premiums because other people have their kids on their insurance. Why shouldn’t everyone be entitled to affordable health care? If we don’t pay for it in the private sector we pay for it in the human cost.
HIV is not a gay problem. The largest % of HIV positive people are straight African-American males.
5. Social Security will be stressed.
These people are paying in, why should they not recieve the same benefit as others? Is it right to exclude them because of their race? What next gender? This is a rediculous discussion.
6. Religious freedom will be jeopardized. Is preaching from the Bible going to be a hate crime?
The Bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination, but it also says that we should kill witches and burn their scrolls. I don’t see anyone in jail for that as a hate crime yet.
I won’t even go into some of the other arguments as they focus on homosexuality as an immoral thing. Why can’t we recognize homosexuality as a natural response to overpopulation? As we work to make peace and irradicate sickness what else can we do to control our already burgeoning population? At least a same sex union does not produce more people and this is no disease. This isn’t a choice you make, just like you may not choose your race or gender.
Why is it that “any religion, even a religion of love, must be cold and unloving to those outside of it”?
Because of the concept of righteousness.
“Now, what is “unrighteousness” in practice? It is in practice behavior that of a kind is disliked by the herd. By calling it unrighteousness, and by arranging an elaborate system of ethics around this conception, the herd justifies itself in wreaking punishment upon the objects of its own dislike, while at the same time, since the herd is righteous by definition, it enhances its own self-esteem at the very moment when it lets loose its impulse to cruelty. This is the psychology of lynching,… The essence of the conception of righteousness, therefore, is to afford an outlet for sadism by cloaking cruelty as justice.”
-Bertrand Russell
Thinking that someone is doing something wrong doesn’t make you a bigot. Disenfranchising an entire group of people based on your own concept of righteousness, who otherwise have all the cognitive and rational abilities of anyone else, however, is.
Generally my comments are light hearted and not meant to offend, and I hope that you’ll forgive my ignorance of the legal issues at stake (or not?). But please don’t assume that I haven’t thought some of these things through, my ideas are my own, and I hate MTV.
sorry about the novel…
I mean I read it for a while.
Sigh there went the Constitutional Law convo ; ) Maybe I will start a Constitutional Law blog.
dude i am INTO constitutional law.
love it.
in the history of haduken, i have never seen such a long-winded straw man argument!! congrats! you sat him right up there and beat him down! bam!
with that 2-punch combination of straw man and name-calling, i just don’t know what to say? i guess i’ll just curl up in a little ball of bigotry and fearfully pray to the god of hate for the time when overpopulation subsides and the disease known as homosexuality is eradicated.
Thoughts on homosexuality.
Far be it from having humanity surpass the dogma of religious teaching. If you’d like to send me anything having to do with why homosexuality is wrong, please by all means. I welcome any information that may help me to understand why I should feel the way tons of other people do.
Here’s my email address: askance@post.com
Anyone, please do, I’ll write you back with how I feel about it too, unless you ask me not to. That way I can have an actual debate,or just hear the other side, without having to take up a lot of space on Haduken. I invite any open dialogue and I’ll see about actually setting up a web space for just this sort of thing, after I get trough the next couple of weeks.
hahaha, no, i respectfully decline your email date invitation.
“If you’d like to send me anything having to do with why homosexuality is wrong, please by all means.”
i mean, if you can’t find something naturally odd and “wrong” about a man sticking his penis in another man’s filthy asshole, then i’m at a loss. there’s plenty else to say, but i’d feel like i was wasting my time. i guess i kid, but do i? is it so hard to see?
look, there’s already plenty of sites dedicated to this and i’m not going to waste my time trying to convince somebody of something through endless email discussion. my only suggestion is that you take an honest look at the causes and the effects of homosexuality on the individuals themselves and on society. what you’ll find is all sorts of utter filth surrounding homosexuality and it has nothing to do with religion. while i don’t think the bedroom is any place for law and gov’t, i’m not naive enough to ignore the effects the bedroom has on individuals, and subsequently, society as a whole. i know people on haduken write me off as a religion-loving loon, which is nothing more than a pathetic cop-out. while some people my find this to be hijacking, i think it’s on topic, bc marriage is a privelege that is granted, and the people must decide if it’s best for society as a whole whether or not to extend it to others. this is not a Right. you must decide if gay marriage is good or bad for society. but i guess if you believe in total anarchy, then none of this matters anyway and every law is just self-rightousness.
also, i never said i supported this particular change in the law, i’m just saying it’s not right to call someone a bigot just because they aren’t in favor of gay marriage. and my jest about marrying trees (which i thought was obviously a joke, but maybe not?), was only to suggest that every state may not want to live with the marriage decisions of every other state. and i’d say the constitutional clause is vague to say the least (as i think it was intended to be).
Here are some outside thoughts on the amendment. Worth a quickie read.
the bill of rights does seem like a strange place for this. i can see reasons why supporters of the change would want it in the state constitution somewhere (even if there’s a law for it already), but why the bill of rights part of the constitution?
on the other hand, if it’s in the constitution, does it really matter where it is in there? if it’s in the there, it’s in there i suppose.
also many of the legal issues brought up on that site where addressed to some extent in the pdf Max posted originally. and i feel like their reasons 1 and 3 are the same (legal guessing)? if i’m reading it right, their reasons are the legal issues (which appear to have been thought about and not a problem according to the pdf) and that it’s in the bill of rights, but what if it was in another article?
if i was going to change our constitution (which i might, not 100% sure), i’d simplify the text and move it to another section, so i will probably vote ‘No’ to this as proposed. but don’t think i’m going soft-
I’M STILL A FASCIST BIGOT!!!!
This proposed amendment is rather vague, as Wolf pointed out before, so it seems the legal questions in (1)3 seem worth worrying about. It seems to me, however, that if the question of guardianship and/or an end of life decision (or other domestic worries) comes up this amendment wouldn’t be applicable, it just seems like overreaching.
But yeah, I don’t understand why this needs to be in the Bill of Rights section. My only guess is that the VA con works like the US con, the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments, so the rest of the amendments fall into that same section. I dunno.
“Marriage is a privelege that is granted, and the people must decide if it’s best for society as a whole whether or not to extend it to others. this is not a Right.”
Actually, this is false in the United States. See Loving v. Virginia (1967):
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
That was when they struck down interracial marriage, which was supported by the same arguments I hear for no-gay marriage.
See also Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), which is where the quote within a quote was cited from.
But, you know, whatever. Who cares about orderly pursuit of happiness I guess.
Replace “struck down interracial marriage” with “struck down ant-interracial marriage laws.”
RMS, marriage may be a right, but everyone has the right to marry through the system created by each state. there are many many regulations and stipulations on marriage which vary by state. read your quote- nobody is denying someone the right to marry, so long as they marry according to the regulations in place. a gay man can marry, he just can’t marry another man. just like he can’t marry a child, a sister, etc.
“Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.”
another supreme court quote. so, like i said, while you may have the right to marry, the institution of marriage is controlled by legislation. that’s what i meant by privilege, bc state legislation defines that right and really what marriage even means. i don’t know if this means that marriage can then be defined as between a man and a woman and that’s how va’s getting away with it now- like that’s the “the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage.”
could this also relate to affirmative action? where descrimination is ok as long as it’s supposed to be good for the whole? this, if you consider gay marriage ban descrimination, would take us back to deciding if gay marriage was good or bad for society as a whole. not that i support AA, but is it a relative precedent? or no?
perhaps the constitution/ussc loving folks could rejoin? or have i destroyed all interest in the subject, which is fine.
one day i’ll be gone, and haduken will have one big unadulterated liberal orgy!
soooo… what about this church right to incorporate thing? Is there some reason as to why they haven’t been allowed to before? Why shouldn’t they have that right? Seems like a fairly reasonable request to me. No poking fun intended, but a church, at least monetarily, is run like a business. You have a CEO, maybe a CFO, a board that makes decisions for the church, and various other bureaucratic positions fulfilled by members of the church. Seems to me that it should fall into the category of something like a non-profit organization. No one’s said anything about this ballot question yet, so I would like to see what people have to say.
i don’t know the history of it, but i figured it was some kind of seperation of church and state thing? i don’t know where it came from.
i think i will vote no on principle. at heart i am a conservative (dictionary definition) when it comes to the constitution and as such i don’t like to make changes to it unless we really really need to, like to free the slaves or something. plus it will strike a rhetorical blow to those activist judges who think they can legislate from the bench.
also on another note, this weekend ihrtdrks and i were downtown and were approached by a petitioner who asked: “do you know about the constitutional amendment on the ballot in november?”
and i said, “which one?”
and he stared, like, “there’s more than one?”
anyways it was the one to stop the gay plague that he was talking about. so i want to thank maxpower for letting me be better informed so i could pwn him.
Midas, that is ridiculous (about voting no to #2).
But thank you.