muckefuck: (Default)
[personal profile] muckefuck
"So Missouri voted to 'keep marriage like it's always been' there? What, between consenting fifteen year-olds?"--Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ
Yes, I'd like to personally thank my home state for reminding me why most Northerners reckon it belongs to the South. And for reminding me that it's like a parent to me: I love it, I miss it, but I can't ever see myself living with it again.
Date: 2004-08-04 06:23 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] windswept.livejournal.com
That quote is hilarious! And I didn't know Missouri wasn't part of the South.
Date: 2004-08-04 06:43 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Parts of Missouri are Southern. The Bootheel, no question. Branson? BOY HOWDY! Poplar Bluff? That's where the creators of Designing Women came from.

But Kansas City? St. Louis? Hannibal? All Northern, even if Mr Clemens did have a thang for white suits.
Date: 2004-08-04 08:26 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] bunj.livejournal.com
Is sodomy even legal in Missouri? I remember that being an issue around a decade ago, and I can't remember if the law is still on the books.

I think this craziness has more to do with Missouri being a battleground state than anything else. After all, the nay-sayers are the majority all over the country. The Republicans are just trying to get the vote out, which is why this ended up on the ballot. If Illinois was in contention, you'd probably see the same thing here.

Still, it's unfortunate, and one of the many reasons I don't live there anymore either.
Date: 2004-08-04 10:05 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
The law is still on the books, but five years ago it was ruled not to apply to consensual sex. Since then, of course, Lawrence vs. Texas has definitively invalidated it.

Except that I think opposition was bipartisan. After all, the vote coincided with hotly-contested Democratic primaries (most notably the race for governor, in which Holden became the first sitting Missouri governor in history to lose his party's primary) and registered Dems outnumbered Reps at the polls. Proponents of the amendment spent almost no money on the campaign, prompting the Post-Dispatch to say that "values appeared to beat dollars at the ballot box". ('Cause, you know, we fags have no values, all we have are deep pockets, the better with which to finance our rampant hedonism and corruption of society.)

The one bright spot is that turnout was 41.3%. However, these voters were more than 2 to 1 in favour of defining marriage as "between a man and a woman". In order for a solid majority to be in favour of same-sex marriage, almost every single person who didn't show up would have to support it. How likely is that?

No, I think there's no way of spinning this which denies the fact that most Missourians are not pro-gay--or even gay-neutral. That's why I've come more and more to rely on the courts to protect my rights instead of throwing them to the tender mercies of the tyranny of the majority.
Date: 2004-08-04 12:58 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] gopower.livejournal.com
Based on my quick look at the gubornatorial primary results, it looks like the Missouri electorate yeserday was 58% Democratic. With 71%in favor of the amendment, that suggests at least 50% of the Democrats voted for it and probably much higher as I doubt the Republican vote was more than 80% in favor.

Some have theorized that many Republicans went to the polls and took Democratic ballots so they could vote for Gov. Holden, widely seen as the weaker candidate in the fall. I doubt it -- in my experience Republican voters are never that clever.
Date: 2004-08-05 07:13 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] bunj.livejournal.com
I'm not saying the amendment didn't have bipartisan support, but everything I've read about this year's elections is about exciting the base. Originally the proponents wanted to get the amendment on the November ballot, but Holden blocked that. What I ment was that Illinois could probably propose a similar amendment with similar results, but no one will because it doesn't make political sense in Illinois.

I guess it's not that comforting to point out that Missourians are not significantly more gay-hostile than most of the country. The one bright spot is that demographics are on your side. Polls show more acceptance of gay marriage among younger voters.
Date: 2004-08-04 09:33 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] snowy-owlet.livejournal.com
This whole line of political wrangling is SO STUPID.
Date: 2004-08-04 01:14 pm (UTC)

Don't Blame the South

From: [identity profile] gopower.livejournal.com
Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Nevada beat Missouri to the punch in passing constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. Twelve other states appear to be headed for votes on such amendments this year: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.
Date: 2004-08-04 06:33 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] currawong.livejournal.com
Hicksville is everywhere.

Anywhere Tennessee Williams comes from is the sow-yuth.
Date: 2004-08-05 07:24 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
Williams may have lived in Missouri, but he's not from there; he's a Mississippian. In fact, he hated St. Louis because it was too Northern--urban, unattractive, unfriendly, etc.
Date: 2004-08-06 04:42 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] currawong.livejournal.com
Well Mississippi is certainly the sow-yuth.
That flibbertigibbet just didn't appreciate the joys of shoe-salesmanship.
Did they ever complete that big MacDonald's in Missouri?
Date: 2004-08-06 08:24 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Building a McDonalds isn't exactly news around here.

They're building a new, improved (read: more sky boxes for VIPs) stadium for the baseball team in St. Louis. It might have a McDonalds in it.
Date: 2004-08-06 06:51 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] currawong.livejournal.com
Oh, Mucky...Where's your sensayuma?
I was referring to that big archy thing they have there that looks like half of a Mc Donald's sign.
Date: 2004-08-07 07:31 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
There's a McDonald's on a riverboat permanently moored in front of the Arch. It's the only one I've seen without the golden arches. As a boy, I was told this was a condition for taking that spot: They couldn't have anything that would "compete" with the monument.

Of course, that was then. If St. Louis has gotten anything like Chicago (where Disney can line State Street with 3-D advertisements and call it "art" and the new "Milennium Park" doesn't have a square inch that isn't named for a corporation), they're working on plans for the second span as I type this.

Profile

muckefuck: (Default)
muckefuck

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314 15161718
192021 22232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 11th, 2025 12:32 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios