An interesting piece of news coming out of the notoriously anti-gay state, Virginia, indicates that polls show that, even though the majority of voters support a ban on same-sex marriages, it is not by a wide margin at all, as previously thought. Only 52 percent of voters surveyed said they support the amendment. While that may prove to have little comfort value for the GLBT community living in Virginia if the amendment passes, I think it clearly shows them that they're not completely alone in that state.
Of course, if the ballot measure had been written to exclude same-sex marriage ONLY, I suspect it would pass by a landslide. However, the framers of the measure were short-sighted enough to believe that a measure that would ban partnerships of any kind between non-married people, regardless of gender mixes, would pass.
I have long said that ballot measure votes should not be passed by a simple majority because in many areas of the country, the majority is often defined by people who belong to a specific group, whether it be race, religion, or something else.
For example, let's say that 51% of the people that live in Utah are Mormon and the remaining 49% are not. (I'm just using random numbers here, so don't get all cranked about it, okay?). They're given a ballot measure to make Mormonism the state religion and, in so doing, all government will be run according to Mormon beliefs.
If all of the Mormons vote for the measure, based on their religious beliefs, then the minority has no chance at all even though they may have all voted against the measure.
Ballot measures should pass only by a 2/3 majority or a margin percentage or some other measuring stick, not unlike the way the Senate votes. The democratic process is flawed in the simple "majority rules" concept. It's not democratic, it's the majority oppressing the minority in some instances. This is why it's important to have larger gaps dictate the passage or failure of these sorts of ballot measures.
If this sort of system was in place, I would wager that Virginia would see this measure defeated and some of the states that have already passed amendments to their constitution would not have been able to do so.
In our sue-happy or I-can-get-some-big-money-out-of-this society, I can only shake my head as I read this article about a woman who went to a Kansas City Royals game and was struck by a foul ball and now wants the team to pay her medical bills. To me, this is the same mentality as that which was displayed by the two men a few years back who decided to use a lawn mower to trim shrubs. They rigged the safety mechanism so the mower wouldn't stop when they let go of it and they both picked the running lawnmower up by the deck, and lost their fingertips. They sued the manufacturer of the lawnmower, alleging that nothing in the equipment's instructions told them not to pick it up that way. When you go to a baseball game, and sit up front near the third base line, you have to expect foul balls and exercise a certain amount of awareness of your surroundings. I might be silly but I honestly think that personal safety is an individual responsibility first. I'm not saying that she didn't protect herself, not at all. But I am saying that, by buying the ticket and sitting in the seat, you assume a certain level of risk and, as long as the team isn't negligent, it just sucks to be you if you're hit by a stray ball.
I could make MYSELF gag with this! LOL!
|You Are Not Scary|
Everyone loves you. Isn't that sweet?
Have a great weekend!