08 November 2006

I'm Not Moping

I didn't post yesterday because I was busy with a local get-out-the-vote effort, because I spent time with my daughter (Cars was released on DVD yesterday, you know), and because I hit the rack before I even bothered to look at the early poll results. I say this because I would like my three readers to know that it isn't due to post-election blues (no pun intended) that I didn't post on Election Day. Things may not have gone the way I had hoped, but you're not going to see me just hanging it up and walking away.

It looks like the Republicans may lose both the House and the Senate and, while I had hoped that concerns over national defense would kick more people into voting for the GOP, the Republicans in Congress are the ones who are to blame for losing the public confidence in their ability to lead and govern. On the brighter side, it looks like a good portion of the new Democratic representatives may be of a more conservative bend. I realize that the leadership of the committees is going to be frustrating, but I am cautiously optimistic that enough of the new Democrats in the House may go against any retreat-and-defeat bill and, as such, prevent a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

Another bright spot for me are the seven states which appear to have passed ballot initiatives to ban a special waiver to a fraction of society in regards to marriage. Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin decided to amend their state constitutions to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. I know that there are those out there who think that this is discriminatory, but I disagree. There are many pre-requisites as to who may be a party to a marriage, and having the parties being of opposing genders is only one of them. Requiring that everyone follows the same rules, regardless of sexual preference, is actually equality, not discrimination. Besides, if you grant a special waiver to a fraction of society based upon their sexual preference, you would most assuredly need to provide a waiver to others based upon their religious convictions (e.g., multiple wives for Mormons and Muslims).

Anyway, 27 of 28 states which have presented voters with an initiative to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman have passed those initiatives. Even though yesterday Arizona became the only state to ever reject such and initiative (doing so by a very close 51% to 49% margin), over half of the country now has marriage defined in their respective state constitutions.

In another win for equality, the Michigan electorate supported a measure to do away with preferential treatment based on race and gender in college admissions and government hiring. I've always felt that "affirmative action" was discriminatory, and also that it was a condescending slap in the face to those who received preferential treatment because of it (i.e., it sent the message that people of a certain race or gender couldn't compete without having the requirements changed or ignored). Hopefully the Michigan outcome on this issue will spark similar initiatives in other states.

On the federal level, we'll see how everything turns out when the power shifts in the 110th Congress. I'm set to send off letters and to be part of the process if I disagree with anything that the Democratically controlled House (and possibly Senate) attempts. Even though everything did not turn out as I had hoped, I will not just pick up my ball and go home. The elections have been held, the people have spoken, and I will remain an active part of the process.


No comments: