Ob USElectionCommentary

[firecat]

Yay Democratic House. Impeach, impeach, impeach.

Yay no Republican gains in major races.

Hope for tied Senate (still too close to call, last I checked).

Yay no California Prop 85 (mandatory waiting period and parental notification if minor daughter seeks abortion). Yay South Dakotans for voting down their anti-abortion initiative.

Mad about a bunch of "no gay marriage" amendments passing. (But yay Arizonans for defeating theirs!)

Pretty scared at the 71% yes vote on California's Prop 83 ("Sex offenders released from prison would be monitored with Global Positioning System (GPS) devices...for life. Registered sex offenders would not be allowed to reside within 2,000 feet of a school or park." [i.e., not in any urban areas whatsoever]). It just seems to me that the definition of "sex offender" could change awfully suddenly to include consensual behavior among adults.

Comments

[sistercoyote.livejournal.com]

Hell, just peeing in public can get you put on a "sex offender" list in some places.

[tiger-spot.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I am not happy about 83. I wonder if people see "sex offender" and assume that means "pedophile" -- I know a number of other things can get people on the list in some states, but I'm not sure what does it here. I'm going to have to look more closely at the actual laws now; maybe write some letters.

[flippac.livejournal.com]

Here (UK) I could be convicted of a sex offence if my housemate and I slept together completely consensually. She could be convicted of the same one. Why? Because we both have mental disorders (legal term - depression, asperger's etc) and act as each other's carer.

The definitions used are wide enough that unless there was some extremely blatant flirting at the start it's actually difficult for me to have an ordinary relationship that doesn't risk one or both of us breaking that law.

[flippac.livejournal.com]

Should read "depression, asperger's etc count".

[firecat]

Agh. So people on antidepressants are considered mentally incompetent?

[firecat]

I'm sure they do assume it means pedophile. And the law might be written so that only pedophiles count now (I haven't read it), but I don't trust that to continue to be the case.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

Virginia's new constitutional amendment does not just prohibit same-sex marriage. It prevents anyone not in a legally registered marriage of one man and one woman from receiving any of the benefits of marriage. (Well, any those benefits the state controls. They can't keep us out of each other's arms, which is quite a benefit, when you get right down to it.) There are thousands of Virginians in unmarried families, who made contracts for mutual inheritance, living trusts, guardianship of children, living wills, and so on...the new constitutional amendment forbids all that. I also expect it to limit the ability of unmarried couples to adopt children.

Domestic violence protections apply when a person attacks a spouse, or someone "living as a spouse." (Non-domestic violence can also be serious, but it's a different thing.) After Ohio passed a constitutional amendment with wording like Virginia's, some courts are saying they can't issue restraining orders to unmarried abusers. http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/TeachingwithCurrentEvents/ConstitutionNewswire/16833.shtml
Because that would give a benefit of marriage to the unmarried victim.

In short, this amendment is a total disaster for all unmarried people. I grieve for Virginia.

[firecat]

That is truly disgusting. Looks like it won't stand up to a Supreme Court challenge, but in the meantime...[grrr]

[lissamc.livejournal.com]

Arizona was a close call, and I think we wouldn't have won if the folks writing the proposition hadn't overstepped. They not only wanted one man/one woman definition, but wanted to define out of existence anything else that looked like marriage, at least in the eyes of the government recognition. That would make domestic partnerships not viable for government recognition...which means that folks, gay *and* straight, who are working for the government and are already receiving benefits for their families under their domestic partnership would lose those benefits. The folks fighting to defeat the proposition sidestepped the issue of gay marriage entirely, and went after the 'gay marriage is already illegal here so this doesn't affect that--all you are really doing is taking away people's current benefits, and that's just mean' line. If the proposition hadn't been shown to negatively affect straight folks, it wouldn't have made it. *sigh*

[firecat]

I'm glad that enough people listened to that argument in AZ - it appears that in Virginia they did not.

[crazed-lynn.livejournal.com]

71% of Californians just voted for many millions of dollars in litigation costs. The sex offender law can't stand a constitutional challenge, but what Attorney General would have the balls to let the unconstitutional ruling of the first court. Nope, Politically, the AG would have to appeal all the way to the supreme court.

This will be very expensive.

[firecat]

And in the meantime the California taxpayers will be paying for lots of GPS's and technology for continually monitoring them.

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

83's already been blocked by a Federal judge, and I don't see it ever being implemented; it will not pass Constitutional muster.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

May the gods be praised.

Take a moment, and help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach..

[jodinmorey.livejournal.com]

The day the nation demands impeachment is upon us. Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html (http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html)