hippiechick wrote:
 
I'll add what I left off the other post:

Racist Dimwits.

Sorry to throw your Aunt into that category, but I've gotta call a spade a spade. In a manner of speaking. And I have plenty of racist dimwits in my tree too.

c.

 duchamp wrote:
 
I grew up in Montgomery. Sounds like yesterday was pretty interesting there!  c.

owld_skipper wrote:
A state constitution still has to follow the US constitution. 

I haven't studied the issue in depth, but it sounds like Roe v Wade to me. 

It seems to be a gross inequality to disallow rights to same sex couples.  Since there's a lot about equality in the US constitution, it's difficult to legislate INequality on the state level.

Anyone else?

(I'm gonna cross post this in the Gay Rights thread... makes more sense to talk about it there?)

hippiechick wrote:
I spent yesterday in the Montgomery, Alabama, area. Wish I had pictures!

 cc_rider wrote: 
I tried to explain that to her; they were possibly security guards hired to protect polling places. But the rumors ran rampant.

 Hairfarmer wrote: 
My ex-brother-in-law (idiot!) said "I don't mind Obama in the WH, it's all his black friends I worry about." These white people are afraid that the black people are going to take over now. Old skool racism.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Did these gentlemen have uniforms on? Because it sounds to me like they were probably POLICE OFFICERS. There is often some kind of police authority present at polling places, to make sure the laws are followed: no campaigning within 100 feet, no voter intimidation, no interference with poll workers, et al.

 hippiechick wrote: 

But if the cause of this expected rioting is because a black man has been elected President wouldn't that make the people most likely to riot white bigots? Isn't that like you or I being frightened that people will take to the streets to play, diverse, ecclectic, cool music?

 MonkeyPod wrote: 
Me, too. But since I'm only a temporary legal visitor, that may change.

 owld_skipper wrote: 
Okay, I read the section in Wikipedia about the amending process and assumed this was the fourth type called a voter initiative to call a Constitutional Convention.  The wording seemed too simple for a real amendment. 

There will be lawsuits and I believe it will eventually be removed.  Meanwhile, I live with a bunch of idiots.

So I called my aunt in Daytona FL to talk about the election, and she was telling me about the big black men with billy clubs standing at the polls, and the voters were whispering that they were Black Panthers. She got mad at me when I said that I hadn't seen anything like that anywhere else, so she thought I was doubting her.

My aunt is an old school racist. My uncle was a cop in Cleveland during the riots, and my aunt still has the fear.

I'm afraid that this is the beginning of what will be a strong backlash by whites who still think that there will be rioting in the streets because we have a black man as president. Because he is black, it must be his fault.

 rosedraws wrote: 
What for? This a freckin state constitutional amendment, duly passed by the required 60+% of the voters. Do you remember when Palin was babbling about social issues being properly decided by the states? This is exactly what she was talking about. I seem to remember her saying there was no need to overturn Roe vs Wade because the states could individually decide the issue with constitutional amendments. In her mind, all you need is a fundementalist revolution in every state and ram the thing through on the coattails of God. Separation of church and state? It's gone people.

I don't know how you can challenge this in the Supreme Court. Servo? Stiller? Laxy8?

owld_skipper wrote:
Good lord that's awful.

Supreme Court here we come??

 MonkeyPod wrote: 
Not only gay and lesbian couples. The best election ad on tv down here was about a man and a woman in a domestic partnership which gave them rights with respect to each others medical care. It appears that Amendment 2 would end such rights and the man would have been unable to be part of his domestic partner's health care as she went through difficult medical procedures.

Text of Amendment 2

The text of Amendment 2 states “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Why would we be voting in favour of something that restricts existingindividual rights? Needless to say, the lovely A_G voted against Amendment 2, I would have if I could have voted. As Wikipedia points out:

Proposed constitutional amendments in Florida require 611,009 signatures, including at least 8% of voters in the last presidential election and at least 8% of voters in each congressional district of Florida. The initiative was certified with 649,346 signatures and was placed on the ballot on February 2008. 60% of voters are required to pass the amendment in Florida. The amendment was passed by a margin of 62.4% in favor and 37.6% opposed.

 rklein wrote: 
  DC just elected a young, smart black man(Adrian Fenty) as mayor after years of corruption and ridicule under Marion Barry's machine. (there have been 2 "interim " mayors)

 He's got some serious guts/cojones in that he hired a Korean American  woman(Michelle Rhee) to clean up generations of corruption, fraud and waste in the school system.

 I think the city took notice and is moving out of the stone(d) age under his leadership.

 owld_skipper wrote: 
I believe the result of Amendment 2 will be in legal trouble from the beginning draft.  The Commission will get sued for discrimination and the process will be held up for years.  They might as well add an amendment that counts non-white votes as 3/5 of a vote because that is what they are doing to the rights of gay and lesbian couples.

 MonkeyPod wrote: 
You're ahead of me on both counts, MP. However, even if the process in FL is as you say, based on the vote results on the Amendment 2 question on the ballot, such an amendment is likely to pass easily here. I don't think you will see the massive campaign that was mounted in California to protect gay marriage rights being fought in FL.

I'll go Google the run-off question.

 owld_skipper wrote: 
Correct me if I'm wrong here but I believe the vote for a Florida Constitutional Amendment begins the process to write an Amendment that has to be passed by a 60% public vote.

I heard that the Franken / Coleman election was so close it requires a run-off election and the third party candidate ( a bus driver ) probably siphoned off votes from Franken.

As far as I looked Obama got the highest percentage of votes in Washington DC (93%) followed by Hawaii 72%. Of course, smaller states can easier reach percentages far away from the national average of 53%. So let's look at counties.
Of course, Washington DC leads again with 93%, but which county is next. I found San Francisco with 85%.

 islander wrote: 
TMI!!! TMI!!! TMI!!!