In a Close Call, Washington State Projected to Pass Gay Marriage Measure

Nov 7, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

Referendum 74, a measure that would allow same-sex couples in Washington State to legally marry, has been voted into law on Tuesday.

Comments
1 - 20 of 31 Comments Last updated Nov 10, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

600,000 votes are still waiting to be counted, with the biggest chunk of them to be counted tonight.

They should break pretty much the same way the first 2 million votes did in each county. From the numbers I've seen, we may actually increase our 70,000 vote lead to around 100,000.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
600,000 votes are still waiting to be counted, with the biggest chunk of them to be counted tonight.
They should break pretty much the same way the first 2 million votes did in each county. From the numbers I've seen, we may actually increase our 70,000 vote lead to around 100,000.
Hope you're right. My sister and her partner live in Washington. They're looking forward to getting married ... finally. We're all biting our nails on this one.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 7, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

It's over bigots give up.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GREAT !

Let's hope that SCOTUS rules DOMA unconstitutional in the very near future, and let's also hope they refuse to hear the Prop 8 appeals.

LIBERTY for ALL !

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 7, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
600,000 votes are still waiting to be counted, with the biggest chunk of them to be counted tonight.
They should break pretty much the same way the first 2 million votes did in each county. From the numbers I've seen, we may actually increase our 70,000 vote lead to around 100,000.
From what I've been reading elsewhere, marriage equality supporters unilaterally declared victory this afternoon based on where most of the votes remain out and the King County Clerk's office announced they were going to be adding extra hours once the law takes effect. But nothing is official.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 7, 2012
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>From what I've been reading elsewhere, marriage equality supporters unilaterally declared victory this afternoon based on where most of the votes remain out and the King County Clerk's office announced they were going to be adding extra hours once the law takes effect. But nothing is official.
I'm cautiously optimistic right now.

You can see how many votes are outstanding in each county and how the previous votes have gone in those counties at the Secretary of State website. They update the tallies every hour or so.

There are 100,000+ from King county which went 65-35 for Ref 74, and 100,000+ from Snohomish county which went 52-48 for Ref 74. On the other side there are 100,000+ from Pierce county which went 52-48 against Ref 74, and an additional 300,000+ from the rest of the counties which average 60-40 against Ref 74.

With only 8 counties voting in favor and the other 31 counties opposed, this could end up being a nail biter before most of the outstanding ballots are counted over the next 2-3 days.

We now have an 80,000 vote lead with just over 2 million ballots counted and 635,000 waiting to be counted.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 7, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Eighteen years ago this December 26th we had our commitment ceremony in a Unitarian Community Church right outside the District in Maryland. This December we will be heading to Vancover, Washington to repeat those vows in a legally recognizable civil marriage in expectation that DOMA will fall in the near future Thus making us eligible for the many federal benefits under those laws including immigration.

If there is a federal suit being filed in the state of Texas in the future we fully intend to participate if qualified. We need to be flooding the federal courts with such cases until DOMA is fully repealed.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 8, 2012
 
I recommend tying the knot in D.C. with the highest level Federal judge you can get to officiate.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 8, 2012
 
snyper wrote:
I recommend tying the knot in D.C. with the highest level Federal judge you can get to officiate.
Just go to Harlem and have Bill do it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 8, 2012
 
Ref 74 update:

There are still 750,000 ballots pending in Washington, with 2.1 million already counted.

Our current lead increased to 85,000 as of this morning.

What a mess! Mail-in voting may be convenient for the voter, but it sure slows down tallying the votes.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 8, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Ref 74 update:
There are still 750,000 ballots pending in Washington, with 2.1 million already counted.
Our current lead increased to 85,000 as of this morning.
What a mess! Mail-in voting may be convenient for the voter, but it sure slows down tallying the votes.
I like that there are no discouraging lines.

I especially like that no church properties are used as polling places.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 8, 2012
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I like that there are no discouraging lines.
I especially like that no church properties are used as polling places.
The only real drawback is the delay in results.

Imagine if every state did that?

We'd be back to waiting a week or more before knowing who won the presidency, house, senate, governor, etc, etc.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only real drawback is the delay in results.
Imagine if every state did that?
We'd be back to waiting a week or more before knowing who won the presidency, house, senate, governor, etc, etc.
The delay between election day and Inauguration Day, which may have made sense centuries ago because of the slowness of communications, really doesn't make sense today. The delay is too long.

I think they should move election day forward, and move Inauguration Day back to January 1st.

In this country, originally, New Years' Day was NOT January 1st. It was whatever day it was that the Vernal Equinox happen to fall on (March 20th or 21st, in the 18th century, later dates as the centuries progressed). Thus, the day following March 20, 1731 was called March 21, 1732. According to the calendar at use in the time, George Washington was born on February 11th, 1731. In 1752 they changed the calendar by dropping 11 days and moved New Year's Day from the Vernal Equinox all the way back to January 1st (The Romans in the time of Julius Caesar did exactly the same thing, moving New Year's Day back from teh Vernal Equinox to January 1st, because that was the day set by law that certain politicians assumed their office). So after 1752, George Washington's birthday was now called February 22, 1732(N.S.)

Also, since the 18th century until FDR's 3rd term, Inauguration Day WAS March 4th. FDR was inaugurated the first TWO TIMES on March 4th, and his third time on January 20th.

It actually makes far more logical sense to begin the new year on the Vernal Equinox. But since we now do that on January 1st, and January 1st isn't significant for anything EXCEPT changing the number of the year, let's move Inauguration Day back to January 1st.

Now before you scream "BUT WE CAN'T JUST CHANGE THE CALENDAR AND INAUGURATIN DAY !", actually you can and we already have done so.

Presently, the delay between election day and Inauguration Day is 75 days, or more than 10 weeks, or 2-1/2 months. Isn't that ridiculously long ? And when a sitting POTUS is NOT reelected, do Americnas reaaly want a lame-duck that length a time, unable to affect things and having people just wait for the new POTUS to take office ?

We've changed the calendar before. We've changed Inauguration Day before. Let's move election day up to late November, and move Inauguration Day back to January 1st, thus shortening a POTUS lame-duck status, and giving some additional meanng to January 1st, besides changing the year number.

Also, trivia question: Assuming the present POTUS serves out his complete term, that will mean that we will have our past 3 consecutive POTUSes each serving 2 full terms so, how common is it to have 3 consecutive POTUS'es serve 2 full terms each and when is the last time that happened ?

GOOD LUCK !

:)

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

And speaking of Presidential tings....

The Electoral College and "getting rid of it":

Firstly, despite a widespread misconception, there is NO federal "RIGHT TO VOTE". The right to vote is strictly up to the states to provide if they wish to do so. Now if you disbelieve me, simply look at the early history of our country, and see how the electors were chosen in the various states in the first 10 (40 years) POTUS elections. Now, BEFORE you say: "Well, the subsequent amendments changed all that !" NO, THEY DIDN'T ! They simply said on what basis a state COULD NOT deny a person the right to vote IF, AND ONLY IF, a state CHOSE TO GRANT a general "right to vote". Study some U.S. Constitutional Law !(I have done so in college).

Secondly, IF the so-called "Electoral College" (the term appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, and the electors, who are chosen in any manner that each state legislature may choose), were eliminated, then the few big states, the top ten, would almost always decide the election, and the smaller states would get no say in the matter. The smaller states are over-represented in the electoral college (and btw, the electors who actually elect the POTUS & VEEP, NEVER meet together with electors of other states. They meeat only in their respective state capitals to cast their votes. So if you think there is some great big ivy-covered university building where the electors meet, called "The Electoral College", there isn't) and this was the price that had to be paid, a compromise between the large states and small states, for the U.S. Constitution to be ratified by all of the original states in the first place.

Thirdly, the ONLY way to go to a direct national popular vote for POTUS would be to amend the U.S. Constitution. That would necessitate the agreement with, and approval by, the smaller states. And politically speaking, WHY would the smaller states willingly give up the little political power they have, for even LESS political power ?! NOT GONNA HAPPEN !

Fourthly, there IS a way to "change the system" to more accurately reflect the popular vote, and it can be done WITHOUT any U.S. Constitutional amendment. Currently 48 states award ALL there electors to the candidate who recieves the most votes, be it a majority or a plurality, called the "winner-take-all" system. Thus, if a candidate wins 50.001% of the vote, he recieves 100% of the electors. That does NOT reflect the popular vote. BUT both the State Of Maine, and the State Of Nebraska, award their electoral votes by congressional district. So that instead of one candidate recieving ALL the electoral votes, they may be split 4-1, 2-2, etc. depending on the state.

So instead of the current "winner-take-all" system curently in place in 48 states, which is specified BY INDIVIDUAL STATE'S LAWS (NOT federal law), the current electoral college system CAN be changed, thru changes in each state's election laws, TO the system used by Maine and Nebraska, which will more accurately (but not perfectly) reflect the popular vote.

Most people forget that the U.S. IS a "federation of sovereign STATES" and the STATES, and EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE, HAS sovereign power in many areas, ACCORDING TO the U.S. Constitution.

Since the smaller states are over-represented in the Electoral College, they will never give up their political power there. So the system used by Maine and Nebraska is the best one can hope for, and people SHOULD WORK FOR THAT IN THEIR STATE, if they don't like the present system.(I like it just fine).

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 8, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only real drawback is the delay in results.
Imagine if every state did that?
We'd be back to waiting a week or more before knowing who won the presidency, house, senate, governor, etc, etc.
Since Inaugurations aren't until very much later, I have no problem with that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 8, 2012
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Since Inaugurations aren't until very much later, I have no problem with that.
Not me. I couldn't stand a week or more of listening to each side claiming they won.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 8, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Not me. I couldn't stand a week or more of listening to each side claiming they won.
I suspect that would become self-limiting over time.

I'm tired of newsies "calling elections".

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 8, 2012
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect that would become self-limiting over time.
I'm tired of newsies "calling elections".
That Democratic governor is working to suspend elections for a few years, like she announced.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 9, 2012
 
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
That Democratic governor is working to suspend elections for a few years, like she announced.
Which one? Such stories usually blow past me without notice.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Nov 9, 2012
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Which one? Such stories usually blow past me without notice.
DEMOCRATIC Governor Beverly Perdue. Google her or catch it on youtube.

My, how "DEMOCRATIC" of her !:) Uncle Joe sure is PROUD !

:)

(Of course if they HAD "suspended the elections" like she wants, we wouldn't have gotten an overwhelming Republican majority in the House Of Representatives the past few years. What does the American voter know about anyting anyway ?!).

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Orcas Discussions

Search the Orcas Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
$100 Directv Referral Program (Aug '10) Sun Karrie 346
individual home health care workers paying unio... Jul 26 gotcha123 1
NO AMNESTY for ILLEGALS! Jul 25 Petal Power 27
Dog, team gone? (Sep '06) Jul 24 Venom 706
WA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Washingto... (Oct '10) Jul 22 EasyEed 710
Munich murder trial ends in conviction (Jul '07) Dec '12 Skagit Karma 7
28th annual Port of Orcas Fly-In scheduled for ... (Jul '11) Jul '11 Skip demuth 1
•••
•••

Orcas News Video

•••
•••

Orcas Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Orcas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Orcas News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orcas
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••