Arkansas Blog

I'll say it again. It's no longer the Bible Belt, it's the Irrelevance Belt. Times are likely to get even more desperate and voices even louder, here in the backwater, as the rest of the country moves toward the future.

one voter whom i carried to the polls, voted for the amendment and said
"they should have to work every year"

i still haven't stopped shaking my head in disbelief

The news media was asleep at the switch, too, and it contributed to the outcome. Where were the stories emphasizing the provisions of Amd 2? Where were the editorials spanking the Legislature for this slight of hand, this intentional effort to mislead voters?

The letter writer also confirms the point of the NY Times article on today's blog.

A sidebar to that line of thinking is that both the Mormon & Catholic Chruches are POed cause they are receiving flack for supporting Prop 8 in Calfiornia. My understanding is that a church is not supposed to be involved in political matters and supposedly the Mormans injected $20 Mil to defeat said Proposition.

Keith O. has a nice take on what it means to those affected personally and points out what these so called christians themselves fail to see or practice. They emulate what bush does when he signs legislation into law, he makes a signing statement on what he thinks is his choice to obey. Like him they choose what "they" think is appropriate for them (and everyone else as well) and not what their good book says.

Check out today's Huffington post for details.

While on the subject of voter ignorance here's a devastating video on California's Prop 8. Enjoy!

Keith Olbermann's Prop 8 Special Comment: It's "About The Human Heart" (VIDEO)
Huffington Post | November 10, 2008 10:39 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/keith-olbermanns-prop-8-s_n_142862.html

It is the letter writer's Constitutional right to vote as he pleases in secret. Once he opens his big mouth about it-also his right-he is subject to contempt and/or praise. The notion that criticism of a person's position on issues has a chilling effect on their Constitutional right of free speech has really been to me the greatest surprise of this election.

Who started putting this stuff out anyway?

BTW...I met the Chick called Mick last night. Nice kid.

Max, I'll tell you the same thing Mrs. Archaeopteryx tells me--if you insist on reading the Op-Ed pages in the Demozette, you have only yourself to blame for being infuriated and disgusted.

It would be nice in this society if we had Civics refresher courses every few years, maybe when we get a new drivers' license. Perhaps this short course could briefly explain that the Majority Rules in cases of elections (hopefully). Majority does NOT rule in cases of civil rights. This is the job of the Courts and the Constitution. I seem to remember a portion of this document which states that the Laws of the Land must be applied EQUALLY to all citizens. What part of EQUAL do we not understand?

How can it be legal for some citizens to participate in certain rewards of this society and be illegal for other citizens to do the same? As long as marriage is a civil document (whether performed in a religious ceremony or a public one), it is unconstitutional to prohibit a certain segment of society from doing the same thing.

'fraid Mrs. Arch is right. The D-G editorial page (which unfortunately I read every day) only serves to assist in the morning "movement"...

And if you're still havin' trouble just read Wally...

I am still seething mad that the adoption act passed. I have had several conversations with people that really didn't understand how to vote on it. And I have had several conversations with people that think it's a good thing it passed. I rarely lose my temper, but this issue touches me personally and I have to admit I have had strong words with some folks...idiots...

I found it amusing that next to the letter that Max cites there was one from a fella that pointed out that "conservative" is not used in the Bible but "liberal" is. I'm not a church guy so I don't know how accurate that is but I hope it's true...

"All over Arkansas, people are saying, "We done whut?" --- Brummett

Really? I've heard NOBODY say that. I find it interesting that Brummett wrote last month that, yes, he would vote against Amendment 2, but that his "against" vote would be cast with "mixed feeling," since legislators possess less-than-desired experience in budgeting. Not that I'm going to take the time to do it, but I bet I could dig up at least one ancient Brummett column in which he actually decries two-year state budgeting.

I have to admit the first thing I knew about a vote for annual legislative sessions was when I sat down at the table to mark my ballot. My wife was next to me and I whispered what the hell is this and she shrugged. My next thought was...how in the hell do you run a state if the legislature only meets every other year? So we both voted yes while feeling very dumb. Makes me wonder how many others were just as well informed and darkened the yes circle out of ignorance?

I don't know how I missed the discussion on a yearly legislature, but I sure did. And now I am thinking about all the ways my vote will hop up and bite me for the rest of my life. I plead ignorance, Judge. But as many hours per day that I've spent reading and researching....how could I have been surprised at the poll? My God....what have I done?

When in doubt, trust ya gut.

Pollen: It just chaps me no end when someone says something with which I don't fully agree and, upon examination, it turns out to be right! "I'd rather be right than president."

You're afflicted with what my son refers to as "making sense disorder."

Emotionally, I'm tied to the notion of marriage as a religion-based thing because I was introduced to the concept in the study of the Bible in a church setting.

So I've felt pretty strongly that marriage should be between one man and one woman and if people of the same gender want to enter into any other kind of contractual agreedment, fine and good; come up with some other name for it, make it legal, and get all the protections and benefits available under the constitution. It's not the legal status to which I have objected, it is the use of the label.

Just to set the record straight, I don't feel my marriage is threatened in any way by what other people do and whatever name they choose to call it. And if someone wants to "get married" to a tree, that's not going to affect my relationship with my wife. So I am in no way threatened by the notion of "gay marriage."

That said, I do have certain emotional attachments to the biblical concept of marriage.

You say: "How can it be legal for some citizens to participate in certain rewards of this society and be illegal for other citizens to do the same? As long as marriage is a civil document (whether performed in a religious ceremony or a public one), it is unconstitutional to prohibit a certain segment of society from doing the same thing."

And when I look at the logic and the legality of that, I have to reconize that you're right. At one level, I don't really "like" it; but you're right.

And if all citizens are to have equal protection under the law, then citizens who view a relationship different from mine as being included under the same umbrella terminology, then I am obligated in good faith--and as a law-abiding citizen--to accept it.

And you uttered some additional words of wisdom when you said, "the Majority Rules in cases of elections (hopefully). Majority does NOT rule in cases of civil rights."

The majority ruled in slavery, but that didn't make it right.

The majority ruled in segregation, but that didn't make it right.

The majority ruled in white-male-only voting, but that didn't make it right.

The majority ruled in black-fractional citizenship, but that didn't make it right.

The majority ruled in male-only voting, but that didn't make it right.

The majority has ruled in the failure to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, but that doesn't make it right.

The majority has ruled in the exclusion of unmarried cohabitants from fostering and adopting, but that doesn't make it right.

And in California, the majority has ruled in the matter of gay marriage, but that doesn't make it right.

I'm conservative enough that I'm not inclined to advocate or campaign for gay marriage, but I'm liberal enough that I would not vote to prohibit it.

To some extent, "none of us is free until all of us are free!"

Might doesn't make right. And majority doesn't make right. But right makes right!

The guy who opposes what you want is always the uninformed one.