Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, October 27, 2009
Politics (Yet Another) Poll: R-71 Leading, I-1033 Failing
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:40 PM
A new poll conducted by SurveyUSA finds that 50 percent of likely voters will cast ballots to approve Referendum 71, thereby voting to uphold the state's domestic partnership law for same-sex partners and seniors, and 43 percent will vote to reject the measure. Seven percent are undecided (really, they're still undecided?).
Meanwhile Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033, which, if passed, would fuck the state like a twink in a girdle, is failing by a 12 point margin. Only 38 percent of likey voters want it to pass, while a blessed 50 percent say they would vote no or have already voted no. Twelve percent are still deciding whether of not to screw the twink.
This is a step in the progressive direction compared to a SurveyUSA poll earlier this month, which found R-71 passing by only three points, and I-1033 was favored by a 13-point margin.
1
If the gay side loses it will be a huge humiliation. They are putting so much more into this than the anti-gay side, so to lose now would be a disaster for them.
If they win by just a little over 50%, it won't be a humiliation, but it will mean no gay marriage for 10 years. Why would any guv or legislator think about gay marriage if only 50% support something less than that?
If they win by just a little over 50%, it won't be a humiliation, but it will mean no gay marriage for 10 years. Why would any guv or legislator think about gay marriage if only 50% support something less than that?
2
Let's do an initiative to ride Tim Eyman out of the state on a rail after we tar and feather him.
Oh, wait, it can't be about a specific person, has to be about a class of people.
Hey, let's do an initiative to ride anyone who submits more than two unconstitutional initiatives out of the state on a rail after we tar and feather "them".
Oh, wait, it can't be about a specific person, has to be about a class of people.
Hey, let's do an initiative to ride anyone who submits more than two unconstitutional initiatives out of the state on a rail after we tar and feather "them".
3
1033 wouldn't mandate any decrease in public funding! It would allow for more, when we make more! Of course this time (the recession) sucks. But when (and if, given current leadership) we recover, we can resume all the over-spending. Jeez.
6
@1
From your mouth to God's ears. I'm all for the "equal rights" but they have no business being "married." That is a co-ed institution. Why can't they just keep to their studio 54 b.s.?
From your mouth to God's ears. I'm all for the "equal rights" but they have no business being "married." That is a co-ed institution. Why can't they just keep to their studio 54 b.s.?
8
@7
So what is the current cove in which you crustaceans gather to mate? Still, you mate in the dark.
Twisting leather ropes
Dig red grooves of agony
On my underside.
So what is the current cove in which you crustaceans gather to mate? Still, you mate in the dark.
Twisting leather ropes
Dig red grooves of agony
On my underside.
9
Excellent, the gaypocalypse is right on schedule. Soon all straight people will lose all will to marry or procreate!!!
11
I-1033 is a blatant attempt by Eyman to reduce taxes while saying it allows government to grow. Eyman is spinning an elaborate lie as usual.
First any attempt to limit public spending to this year's recession level plus adjust slightly for inflation and population is a freeze on public services. Any adjustment of population is not an increase in individual services; it only means you have more people needing services.
And at best adjusting for inflation only means you can buy this year's services next year at their inflated price. Because a gallon of gasoline for a police car costs more next year and you cover that inflated cost, in the end you have still only purchased 1 gallon of gasoline. Your level of services has not increased.
Government is not growing under I-1033. When the economy recovers and more tax revenue becomes available, normally this would be invested in restoring lost services and improving services. This occurs without an increase in any tax rates. There is no increase in taxes being imposed. Tax revenue, because we are dependent on sales taxes, increases as the economy improves.
Eyman proposes to take this revenue and transfer it only to those that own property. This tax shift hurts low and middle income taxpayers and benefits those with lots of property. It is a transfer of wealth to the rich.
So Eyman as usual is trying to fool people by removing tax dollars from our cities and counties and the state at the same time he is saying he is allowing government to grow. He is decreasing the normal revenue that would be available without any tax increases being imposed.
This is a radical attempt to change our tax system just to benefit property owners. It's an elaborate shell game. It makes no sense and is regressive. Vote No on I-1033.
More...
First any attempt to limit public spending to this year's recession level plus adjust slightly for inflation and population is a freeze on public services. Any adjustment of population is not an increase in individual services; it only means you have more people needing services.
And at best adjusting for inflation only means you can buy this year's services next year at their inflated price. Because a gallon of gasoline for a police car costs more next year and you cover that inflated cost, in the end you have still only purchased 1 gallon of gasoline. Your level of services has not increased.
Government is not growing under I-1033. When the economy recovers and more tax revenue becomes available, normally this would be invested in restoring lost services and improving services. This occurs without an increase in any tax rates. There is no increase in taxes being imposed. Tax revenue, because we are dependent on sales taxes, increases as the economy improves.
Eyman proposes to take this revenue and transfer it only to those that own property. This tax shift hurts low and middle income taxpayers and benefits those with lots of property. It is a transfer of wealth to the rich.
So Eyman as usual is trying to fool people by removing tax dollars from our cities and counties and the state at the same time he is saying he is allowing government to grow. He is decreasing the normal revenue that would be available without any tax increases being imposed.
This is a radical attempt to change our tax system just to benefit property owners. It's an elaborate shell game. It makes no sense and is regressive. Vote No on I-1033.
12
@8 "Married" in the civil ceremony sense is a legal contract and there is absolutely no valid reason to object to any two adults deciding to have a particular legal contract, which happens to guarantee a variety of rights all at one stroke. It's just that simple. I'm sorry you dislike the terminology, but at this point you're arguing about mere semantics, which to me couldn't be more irrelevant.
"Married" in the sense that you are --actually-- talking about is one of numerous cultural and/or religious traditions. Nobody's talking about forcing anybody to perform any religious ritual over a particular partnership. Those of us in favor of gay marriage are talking about civil, secular liberties.
Since "marriage" does not actually require a religious ceremony in order to confer those mutual legal rights between two people, the imposition of the 1 man 1 woman rule institutionalizes your particular religious beliefs (and don't you EVEN try to deny it's not religiously based), which are simply not shared by all citizens, religious or not. It is not only a violation of separation of church and state, but a violation of equal protection/treatment under the law.
So no, you are NOT for "equal rights." You are for "separate but equal." Where have we heard that fallacious term before?
"Married" in the sense that you are --actually-- talking about is one of numerous cultural and/or religious traditions. Nobody's talking about forcing anybody to perform any religious ritual over a particular partnership. Those of us in favor of gay marriage are talking about civil, secular liberties.
Since "marriage" does not actually require a religious ceremony in order to confer those mutual legal rights between two people, the imposition of the 1 man 1 woman rule institutionalizes your particular religious beliefs (and don't you EVEN try to deny it's not religiously based), which are simply not shared by all citizens, religious or not. It is not only a violation of separation of church and state, but a violation of equal protection/treatment under the law.
So no, you are NOT for "equal rights." You are for "separate but equal." Where have we heard that fallacious term before?
13
@ Squeedle (love the name, and damn, you're a decent writer)
Okay. But if we straight folk want to then call our unions "opposite sex marriage", would that be okay for you, or would you be after that label as well? It is, after all, just semantics, right?
Okay. But if we straight folk want to then call our unions "opposite sex marriage", would that be okay for you, or would you be after that label as well? It is, after all, just semantics, right?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (13) RSS