![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Political Stuff - skip if it bores you...
Jun. 21st, 2005 09:44 pm...but I hope it doesn't.
This piece by Paul Rogat Loeb is something I found interesting. Not at all surprising, just interesting. Makes me wish more people (everybody, I mean) read the paper.
And on a completely different subject, our governor is now withdrawing his support for the state constitutional amendment that will ban same-sex marriage but allow Vermont-style civil unions. He says it's too confusing, so now he's pushing one that will ban both but won't reach the voters until 2008. 2008, the same year he plans to run for president. He can't very well get a republican presidental nomination if he's the governor of the only state where gay marriage is legal and wasn't rejected by the voters, now can he? Even civil unions would no doubt do in his campaign early, so whichever way the 2006 vote goes he's screwed. So by pushing for a 2008 vote instead and taking civil unions out of the equation, he knows he has a better chance with conservative voters nationwide. That's how I see it, anyway.
Confusing? Nah! It all seems pretty clear to me.
This piece by Paul Rogat Loeb is something I found interesting. Not at all surprising, just interesting. Makes me wish more people (everybody, I mean) read the paper.
And on a completely different subject, our governor is now withdrawing his support for the state constitutional amendment that will ban same-sex marriage but allow Vermont-style civil unions. He says it's too confusing, so now he's pushing one that will ban both but won't reach the voters until 2008. 2008, the same year he plans to run for president. He can't very well get a republican presidental nomination if he's the governor of the only state where gay marriage is legal and wasn't rejected by the voters, now can he? Even civil unions would no doubt do in his campaign early, so whichever way the 2006 vote goes he's screwed. So by pushing for a 2008 vote instead and taking civil unions out of the equation, he knows he has a better chance with conservative voters nationwide. That's how I see it, anyway.
Confusing? Nah! It all seems pretty clear to me.
