The Eleventy Billionth Blog

Going to the Chapel

Last night, voters in Maine were narrowly in favor of repealing a law permitting same-sex couples to marry. 

We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight," said Marc Mutty, the campaign chairman for Stand for Marriage Maine.

Gay marriage has been defeated in all 31 states where it has been brought to a ballot measure. Every. Single. One. Including Texas. 

And maybe it's not about hate. Maybe it's just about denying someone the right to marry whom they want, the old box-turtle defense - which, wait, isn't any better than hate. 

Maine Gov. John Baldacci said that gay marriage will be approved some day by the state's voters, saying that it might not come as soon as supporters want, "But we're going to get there because that's the future."

But does it have to be? Truthfully, I do not want the government's mitts on my marriage. A marriage ceremony is a religious rite, and should be up to individual religious bodies to determine their comfort level when it comes to who they perform marriage ceremonies for. There should be no state-sponsored marriage - for anyone.

What should follow under the government's purvey? Civil unions, which should address the business part of a marriage - the part that needs to file taxes, draw up wills and apply for mortgages. And since the government doesn't need to set rules about who can enter into business together - other then that they're both consenting adults - why should it limit who can enter into a civil union to satisfy federal and state legal requirements?

Already, the disparity from state to state in regards to same-sex marriage has caused a legal morass. In many states, couples that ran to get married in other states come home to find out that nothing's really changed. Later, perhaps things don't work out (just like it happens sometimes in heterosexual relationships), and they want a divorce. 

The only problem? Their home state doesn't recognize their marriage, and the state they married in has residency requirements associated with divorcing.

But maybe the issue will be addressed by the Supreme Court in the next few years. And maybe the state with the Senator whose staff worries that gay marriage will open up all manner of box turtle marriages will lead the way, because just last month a Texas judge ruled that two men married in another state can get divorced, and furthermore, the state's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.

C'Mon, Do a Girl a Solid

I am not Gawker. I'm not Wonkette. I don't have a bajillion people reading me (yet, right?) So if I want to even get on the ballot for this year's Weblog Awards, I'm gonna need a little help.

I've already gone in and set up the nominations in the following categories (look for Bethany A) - just to cover several bases and maybe get one nod: Best Blog, Best Political Blog, Best Humor Blog, Best Individual Blogger, and Hidden Gem.

All you have to do is click the little plus sign at the bottom of my nomination. Gracias!

Today is Election Day

And I must admit, I haven't delved into every single item to thoroughly research - for one, there's about 12,000 constitutional amendments (give or take 11,980-something or so). 

But school board? Heck yes, I've been following. And even if you think voting is a pain in the ass, you should go do it, because they're predicting a pretty paltry turnout. 

And I've got, as you might imagine, some opinions. Most of them, as you can imagine, have to do with the two different camps that have aligned - the "throw the bums out" camp, so eloquently represented by Harryette Erhardt, and the keep the incumbents camp, represented by, well, incumbent Edwin Flores.

An Open Letter to the DMN Editorial Board:

Today we find on the pages of the Dallas Morning News that Mayor Tom Leppert is a bastion of ethics reform, and the soon-to-be-voted on rules were all his idea.

Let's be clear: Angela Hunt proposed it first. The mayor came in later, acted as if it was his idea, and then tried very hard to ram a watered-down version designed to placate voters through the machinery at City Hall.

So to praise Leppert for this nearly toothless bit of spun sugar is as believable as praising the Pope for the Bible. To rail against Hunt and say she was trying to stop the vote - when it's already been reported in your own paper that it was a) her idea and b) she merely wanted more teeth in the thing - is disingenuous at best and patently misleading.