The three tabloid papers this morning declared with giant type the victory of Charles Schumer over Alphonse D'Amato for Senator of the Empire State. The News and The Post declared "CHUCK!" whereas Newsday, always a bit more dignified, screamed, "Schumer!"
It's so rare that anyone I vote for wins that it's nice to see it across the front page. I don't think I have been this happy about a single election since Clinton's 1992 victory.
What I did not hear the night before was that the Vacco-Spitzer vote is so close that they are going to have a recount. Well, Vacco had better not win. I couldn't take him for Attorney General for another four years.
Not surprisingly, the marriage initiatives on the ballots in Alaska and Hawaii failed. What was surprising was the failure of Fort Collins, CO, to pass a hate crimes law. I got an interesting email from someone on the grassroots group's mailing list. Here it is. It's an AP story followed by her comments. I must point out that I am reproducing this without permission; but I am not profiting from this either.
By The Associated Press
Voters in four states had different interpretations of failed gay-rights initiatives, with some saying they lost because Americans will not condone homosexuality and others saying people simply don't want the government involved in a private and contentious debate.
Measures to block same-sex marriages won overwhelmingly in Alaska and Hawaii, and Fort Collins, Colo., voters rejected a proposal to grant gays and lesbians protection from discrimination.
Tuesday's balloting gave mixed results on anti-discrimination initiatives in two cities in Maine, a state where voters had overturned protections for homosexuals earlier this year. South Portland embraced a gay-rights initiative; Ogunquit residents rejected a similar measure by nine votes out a total 757 cast.
``I think tonight it showed most people here don't want the government to take a side in a controversial moral debate,'' said Fort Collins lawyer Jon-Mark Patterson, an opponent of the ordinance.
A major defeat for gay-rights groups came in Hawaii, where voters decided by a 2-to-1 margin to allow lawmakers to craft new legislation to bar gays from marrying. The measure was designed to get around a 1993 state Supreme Court ruling that said the state's failure to recognize gay marriages denied some citizens the rights that others have.
That ruling set off preemptive legislating around the nation. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of homosexual marriage and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere. At least 30 states have banned gay marriages since.
``It's really sending a clear message, a strong message, that the people of this community will not allow homosexual marriages,'' said Mike Gabbard, a leader of the Save Traditional Marriage group.
Same-sex marriage supporters conceded defeat but pledged to fight on.
``It's the first time in my civil rights career that I have encountered so much deep-rooted prejudice and discrimination against a group of people,'' said Jackie Young of Protect Our Constitution.
Alaskans voted 2-to-1 to support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The Fort Collins gay-rights proposal had become emotionally charged since the beating death last month of a homosexual college student near Laramie, Wyo. The victim, Matthew Shepard, was transferred to a Fort Collins hospital, where he died of his injuries. The vote there was 2-to-1.
my personal note: i was caught off guard by this quote:
``I think tonight it showed most people here don't want the government to take a side in a controversial moral debate,''
check the context of this quote carefully. it is in reference to "a proposal to grant gays and lesbians protection from discrimination. "
what i am wondering, is how is anti-discrimination protection of ANY KIND a controversial moral debate??? ok, i can see that SOME poeple might find marriage a moral issue, but even accepting that bit of crap without an argument, how is discrimination a CONTOVERSIAL moral debate?
--marnie
Well, that's it for today. Sometimes it's easier to let others speak for themselves, rather than me trying to explain it all.
Previous entry... Election Day