somebody find me a Vermont’er to kiss
by HERNANDO!!! • April 8, 2009 • too random • 29 Comments
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
-
NorCal Cycling News – Cycling and Racing in Northern California
-
29 Responses to somebody find me a Vermont’er to kiss
Leave a Reply
You should probably add some Iowa judges onto your smooching list. It’s weird that California is behind the curve here.
Yay Iowa! Yay Vermont! Boo California!
Mr. Man
California has already spoken… twice.
Thank god for Vermont stepping up to do the right thing.
God created all men equal, so you should have equal marriage of men and men and there is equal marriage of men and women.
We need more homosexuals to run congress and I think things would be a little better in this country.
I’m sure if the southern states had been allowed to vote on slavery after the Civil War they would have voted to keep it. Just because a majority of people vote for something doesn’t make it right.
Good for Vermont & Iowa.
CA will eventually legalize same sex marriage because it’s the right thing to do.
It’s nice to see both a judicial affirmation (based on the Iowa state constitution, so probably not a precedent that can be used by other states or federally) and a legislative move (no “activist judges” involved).
I’ll go for a Vermont vacation — up for it, Hernando?
P.S. Also, depending on your personal attitude to the above news, you may want to get to or avoid your local Starbucks on tax day: http://www.samesexkissday.org/
You hit it right, Phipps.
We do not elect our representatives to be mindless puppets, to move with every little emotional string that we pull. At least I don’t.
We elect them (ideally) because we believe they have the intelligence and character to lead. And sometimes that means having the stones to stand up and tell us when we’re being dumb asses.
This is one reason I’m against the whole proposition system. It’s the job of our representatives to study issues in detail and to vote on our behalf — because the masses are either too time-constrained, unqualified or disinclined to do a good job of it themselves.
Propositions defeat the design of a representative government.
Californians were wrong in November. We suck.
Big props to Iowa and Vermont for showing us the way.
Amen Ukrainian. Plato had that figured out 2300 years ago. Like the old joke says: democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. That’s why the U.S. is set up as a republic, not a pure democracy. Thank god we don’t have propositions on the national level.
Vermonter to kiss?
Right here!
~Meg G
and then we have Spain…a whole frick’ nation where it’s legal for everyone to marry. Plus, those Spainards have paella and sangria. Go Iowa and Vermont.
Interesting topic. Truly. It seems odd to me though that those people that profess to be open minded and pro-freedom of choice get upset when other people make a different choice than they make for themselves.
If the majority of voters in a democratic process vote for a measure then the voters have spoken. If “your side” did not win the measure then next time ensure you have enough voters on your side.
In sports we call the person who gets upset after losing a match, game, race, etc a “sore loser”.
Lastly, the premise of a democracy is that the people get to directly decide as a country, state, or voting municipal some of laws will govern them. How hypocritical is it to use the system to try and enact change and then bitch about the system when it does not work in your favor.
If you want to change the law come with enough votes to actually do it…….
Don’t forget to kiss your favorite Iowan, too! Too bad i’m so far away these days.
To Hmmmm
???
I am all for freedom of choice.
You’re free to make whatever choice you want, but what gives you the right to take away someone else’s right just because they’re different than you?
We’re upset because people voted to take a right away from a group of people just because they’re different.
I thought this was a cycling website…not a political agenda site?
OMG – clearly you haven’t been on this site much…! Herr Hernandez can’t help but spew a flurry of politico from time to time..and right on for it.
m
Qoute:
We do not elect our representatives to be mindless puppets, to move with every little emotional string that we pull. At least I don’t.
-ukrainian strongman
Dude! Yeah, of course we don’t elect our reps to be mindless puppets that’s why we are given the liberty to vote on controversial issues like this. Our reps are easily persuaded through money and power by the “elites” ie…Corporations. So, we need power to be with the people. Please don’t digress to the whole “the masses are either too time-constrained, unqualified or disinclined to do a good job of it themselves.” That’s bogus…Maybe we shouldn’t be able to elect our President because of the same reason? Who knows maybe that will be the case in 4 years?? Also, please don’t claim that people voted for this issue through “emotional” issues as if to say that nobody can think! You know very well that BOTH sides have educated arguments for or against marriage recognized by the state to remain just man and woman. BTW Californians did NOT vote against marriage of same sex couples (they already “marry” but are only given a civil union certificate). Californians voted to keep state recognized marriage true to it’s original state. This means…Marriage CERTIFICATES are not given to: Same sex couples, polygamous couples, incest and bestiality or various other forms of “love relationships”.
Mikey, ’tis true…I think it’s great to bring forward political issues any time you can. That’s how we educate ourselves best…Throw what you think out there and sharpen your mind with other peoples responses. However, I must agree with omg. It is a bummer to come here for local racing news to see leftist extremist views dominating the site.
Remember to vote in EVERY election.
Peace.
hey, how about giving thumbs and middle finger up to Nevada!
forget about same sex marriage, big deal!
I really think all 52 states should have prostitution legal.
This is the really important issue for people like me who can not find sex, let alone same sex, to take part in.
Actually, California does have equal protection of rights already in place for all parties… gay, homophobic, homosexual, lebanese, or straight. What the proposition does is simply define a word, and that word is marriage.
I have tried to be nice and diplomatic many times about my point of view on this, but that has grown weary.
I think people who would deny others rights, and hide under the bullshit of semantics, are straight up ignorant.
Yeah…the political views I have seen portrayed are of the liberal sort. The gay marriage issue was brought up before…if I remember correctly. Rather read about the cycling scene though…maybe we should structure racing categories to coincide with sexual preferences…35+ gay males 35+, Cat 5 Bisexuals, Cat 3 Lesbians, 45+ heteros..etc. Which categories would fill up fastest?
a link worth listening to – Amy Goodman’s interview with 12-year old Vermont daughter.
i do find heart when the young are so wonderfully rational.
-
But back to the bike.
It delights me to think that Chris Phipps will win this year’s BAR in the 35s. I’ve seen Chris since his first solo V out at Patterson in the 5s. He’s just a big suffermonkey that can play chess (now).
Good on him for the hard work and endless attacking. It’s still an utter annoyance to see him waste energy, but damnitall that’s still’d by the beauty of him spilling pain out his pedals. What a beast.
The Specialized masters are just mafia on wheels.
The consiglieri with a cannon is, of course, Larry Nolan. He footstomped my nutzack so bad at Santa Cruz that I needed a co2 inflator to get up to snuff. Nolan tossed away octane when he gave me the off-on feint, jumping to the lead group like it was a scene out of ‘fast and furious.’ Expensive bridge, that one.
And if it’s not BillyInnes with his paws up, it’s the DeanLaberge. Those guys know how to put the wheel across the line first, yo.
But, the first big scalp went to MorganSpinely winning the Madera Stage Race. They had some TT specialist flown in from MegaFitistan. He scourched 21 minutes and change in the TT … just a couple hours after we did a decently quick crit.
Madera went to Morgan … but the Copperopolis road chip trophy will go to ???
-
How badass is it that Ina TootenBerg won the Women’s Flanders? She is … so … hot.
-
How badass is it that Jackson Stewart is doing Roubaix? one for the memory books. Right on.
-
How badass will Roubaix be this year? Cervelo, Columbia, Quickstep … maybe even Maaskant for Garmin?
-
daaag…out of time.
The California constitution already provides homosexual couples the same rights that it provides heteroxeual couples (marriage). Domestic partners are protected under the family act which specifically states that they are to be afforded the same EXACT rights as spouses (read married people).
So this issue has ALWAYS been about re-defining a word.
What is NOT at issue is the basic set of rights each and every person has (or should have) to conduct their individual lives with the freedom and dignity which has been paid for with many lives. I do not think anybody is arguing that a gay man should not be allowed to visit his partner in the hospital. I do not think anybody is arguing that two women do not have the right to buy a house together. At issue is the confusion over the naming of the union. Marriage has always been a union of one man to one woman. Why must we now try and include other unions in the same definition.
I am curious, would there be opposition to having a second union, named ‘partnership’ or fill-in the blank that affords the same rights and cermonies as marriage? If the rights are all that this issue is about, then another name should not matter.
Again, I do not think anybody is talking about taking away or witholding somebody’s God given rights…..
Still so sad that ‘re-defining’ this word still a bother to people (let alone thinking that this is all it’s about.. that’s just ghey.). How about we just go backwards and say all inter-racial marriages are ‘partnerships’? 1967 wasn’t that long ago right? Hmmmm.
I think many Americans need to learn the difference between a republic and a democracy. The US (and all of the states) is the former, and explicitly NOT the latter, by design.
The US Republic is dedicated to “liberty and justice for all.” As such, minority individual rights are THE priority, meaning that citizens have natural rights instead of civil rights. Those natural rights are covered in the Bill of Rights, among other places, and in this way the minority is directly protected from the *possible* tyranny of the majority.
Example — One vote in a jury can stop the majority from depriving a defendant of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.
This is also why dinky little states like Vermont have the same number of senators as California and New York. It’s another way that a different type of minority is protected.
In a pure democracy, however, 51% beats 49% every time, and the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges that are granted it by the majority.
This is the key distinction between the two forms of government, that the majority can not take away natural rights from the minority in a republic.
And it is on this basis that African Americans were given the rights of full citizenship (the majority would never have voted for this in a referendum in the 1860′s), that women were eventually given the right to vote, that blacks could eventually attend the same schools as whites … and eventually, that gays will be able to marry just like the straight folk in all 50 states.
It will happen. It’s just a matter of time (and effort).
Marriage is a big pain in the arse. Vote yes on Prop.69 to abolish all marriages.
Oh, and I forgot to mention .. protection of minority rights from the the majority is the reason why I believe the referendum system sucks.
If the original system is broken (corruption, etc), fix the system. Don’t keep the broken one and make matters worse by inventing a half-ass semi-replacement that has the potential of creating an even worse set of outcomes.
Shame on you all… love thy neighbor.
Pingback: Anonymous