Slog - Comments on Savage Love Letter of the Day

Comment by Alex

Alex — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:04:17 -0800

Sweet.

Comment by onion

onion — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:07:47 -0800

right on! know hope!

Comment by Hernandez

Hernandez — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:12:24 -0800

"We all have a vested interest. We are all human."

YES! EXACTLY!

Comment by leek

leek — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:14:25 -0800

I hope they didn't use that "were but it not" construction in the wording of the proposition, because that's really going to confuse people.

Comment by w7ngman

w7ngman — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:16:35 -0800

I'm slightly entertained by sentences that begin with "I am not gay, but..."

Comment by jgrn307

jgrn307 — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:16:47 -0800

Good man.

Comment by lauren

lauren — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:21:28 -0800

That made me choke up a little. And I have a solid lump of coal where my heart should be. Thank you.

Comment by elswinger

elswinger — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:33:24 -0800

If I lived in California I would vote No on 8, but can someone explain to me how gay marriage hurts the economy? (See the part on the ballot that talks about "potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes..."

Comment by Karey

Karey — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:34:46 -0800

I'm not gay, but...I'd say any civil rights issue is something everyone has a vested interest in. It bothers me that we even have a vote on this. The point of inalienable rights is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority, such as the vote of popular opinion. I wish the decision of the courts was it and I don't know what the justification for trying to go over their heads with a ballot proposition is. But as long as its left up to the voters then I'm voting yes for everyone's freedom.

Comment by w7ngman

w7ngman — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:35:14 -0800

#8, the fiscal impact is due to a Yes vote, ie banning gay marriage. It's a loss of sales tax revenue from weddings/gifts, most likely?

Comment by Karey

Karey — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:36:08 -0800

Rather yes for freedom, by voting no on 8.

Comment by Geni

Geni — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:40:59 -0800

I really wish the nutcases would find something new to obsess on, rather than freaking out about the idea that two adults in love might wish to form a lifetime commitment to one another. The horror, the horror!

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:50:26 -0800

Latest polling (according to today's Wall Street Journal) shows it's neck and neck.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:59:50 -0800

I wish I was a little bit taller.

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:02:03 -0800

@9,

I agree. I have serious issues with the initiative process in general, but it should not be possible to use it to rewrite constitutions. It just shouldn't. There's a reason why it's so difficult for legislatures to rewrite constitutions, putting these issues up for a popular vote is not acceptable.

Comment by Sargon Bighorn

Sargon Bighorn — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:22:14 -0800

Jason, like SO many others before him has bought into the Religious Right Wing terminology. Alas education even for the Choir is slow and horribly up hill both ways. Once the Religious Right set the terms of discussion, they began to control the outcome of the Vote. "It's not about the words" you might say. Oh but it is. It really is. "Gay-Marriage" = Special Rights, "Same Sex Marriage" = Special Rights. And Gay-Americans seem to insist on using those terms; and what are they saying? Gay-Americans' want, yup you got it, Special Rights. Heterosexuals are not going to get a "Gay Marriage License" nor will they get an "Opposite Sex Marriage License", why? because there is no such legal document.

If one were to use the term "Civil Marriage Equality" or "Marriage" no Special Rights claim could be made. Until we take back the discussion, and stop using the Terms set by the Religious Right, it's a losing battle in the arena of public opinion.

Comment by sawall

sawall — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:26:16 -0800

Geesh, learn to read your CA absentee ballot instructions. You are supposed to draw ONE THIN LINE between the ends of the arrows, not fill it in like crazy!

I hope your vote gets counted correctly. At least I know mine will.

Comment by Jason

Jason — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:37:14 -0800

@16:
I'm sorry, you're going to have to be a bit more clear on how I've "bought into the Religious Right Wing terminology". Bought in how? Huh? You appear to be insisting that the terms are important and then interject several terms I didn't use.

Comment by Chris in Tampa

Chris in Tampa — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:43:54 -0800

@17 - Whether you read the instructions or not, that ballot is awful. Did the Californian electorate find bubbles too difficult?

Comment by Charm

Charm — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:53:15 -0800

It astounds me that you are voting on this issue. Here, some people in Ontario took it to court, said it was unconstitutional, the court agreed, and suddenly it was legal in Ontario. Like wildfire, other provinces jumped on board, and finally we approved the Civil Marriage Act. We didn't have to worry about some religious right campaining against it. It was a Constitutional issue, and the courts ruled on it.

It also strikes me as bizarre that you are still having to deal with election issues. Did you know that our Prime Minister called for an election on September 7th, of THIS year. And we voted on October 14th. Five weeks and we're done.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching this train wreck, it's very entertaining, but don't you ever get tired of it, and wish it were over already?

Comment by Q*bert H. Humphrey

Q*bert H. Humphrey — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:35:19 -0800

@20, (self-)congratulations.

Comment by Jo Spot

Jo Spot — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:36:02 -0800

@20... I spent three years in canada trying to like the place. Really, really trying. What a bunch of self important assholes. God I hate you guys.

Apologies to everyone else for changing the subject. What this post should be about is thanking jason elsheman for his vote and gorgeous letter. I'm excited to do the same myself come nov 4.

Comment by Charm

Charm — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:58:44 -0800

@22 - That's a shame, because we really love you.

I don't think we're self important. We just care more about people than the all mighty dollar. Maybe that should be your flag.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:43:12 -0800

The ballot text looks like it was written by a flaming liberal. I love it.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:53:15 -0800

And @14, I wish I was a baller.

Comment by John D

John D — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:10:52 -0800

People have been telling me of their intention to vote no.

I was walking from my car and a young woman, who saw my "No on 8" bumper sticker, said, "I'm voting no!"

I was shopping and used the phrase "my husband."

The clerk said, with a big smile, "I'm voting no on 8."

This helps me get through the day.

Comment by Sargon Bighorn

Sargon Bighorn — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:40:16 -0800

JASON said, "I KNOW that my vote matters, though I wish very much that it did not. I wish very much that public opposition to same-sex marriage...". Did you type that Jason?

Comment by Jason

Jason — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:48:09 -0800

Yes, I typed that. If you are going to try to harp on me as being somehow not with it because I used the language from the ballot initiative as some indictment of what I've 'bought into', save your keystrokes.

Comment by John D

John D — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:03:24 -0800

I'm with Jason. My vote for Obama won't count. I could stay home and Obama is winning in California.

I'm heading to the polls to defeat Prop 8. I wish, as Jason does, that the measure was so guaranteed failure that one more vote didn't matter.

But it does matter. And so, I'm off to the polls to vote No on 8.