Thursday, November 9, 2006

Throwing Chaos To The Wind - Volume 2

In a never ending effort to bore the tears out of anyone who actually reads this blog, I have decided to explain the concept of a Constitutional Convention to all of you today. There is a reason for this and some bittersweet circumstances that are forcing me to have to do this, and it is also to get my friend Spike a little info on a topic that I know she is interested in, and interests me enough to explain it. My motives are of course self serving usually but today it is a bit confusing so try to follow along. You see the average state in America will have something known as a binding or a non binding referendum which are those confusing questions that are sometimes on your ballots. The “binding” are the ones that the legislature puts out to the public, so that they have a say in a law that might be a bit too broad for the legislature to be willing to vote on completely by themselves, and then there are ones that are ones that are brought through a signature procedure, or petition where you impress upon the legislature to take the question to referendum. The non binding ones are the ones that are just asked so that the legislature can get the feel of the people in the state, and then you have the ones that are binding to the state constitution, which can be brought forth either way. This is about the type that is “binding” to the constitution based on petitioning the legislature to have a “Constitutional Convention” to decide whether the question will be asked on the ballot.

This is a rather difficult process because each state has a certain amount of signatures needed to get the Constitutional Convention process started, and in most cases it is 100,000 signatures needed. Those signatures are then ratified, which means that they make sure that they are valid, and then the Convention is called where most states then have laws on how many votes of the legislature is needed to accept the signatures. Then there is usually a waiting period until the legislature votes again, and then if that works it is placed on the ballot. We are going to use my favorite state to beat up on in this instance since they are usually the scariest place that the rest of the country tends to follow to, and that would be Massachusetts, and we also happen to be lucky that they are a Constitutional Convention today as a matter of fact. The question to be added to the ballot would be if they should add the wording to the state Constitution to make Gay Marriage Illegal, which is about as polarizing of an issue as there is in this country.

First of all let me tell you why this is bittersweet for me, in the fact that I see, once again a wonderful opportunity for the State of Massachusetts to do what most Communist Regimes do, and that is simply violate the rights of their people with no repercussions. This of course amuses me, but I have conflicting issues here that need to be addressed, and the first of which being that I am FOR Civil Unions between any two adults regardless of their particular sexual orientation. I use the word “Civil Union” because I unfortunately do NOT support the right to tell a church that they have to marry them. If you have a particular church that marries Gay couples {and they are out there so don’t start with me} then it is a marriage, and I am not playing around with the definition of the word here. I also happen to be a big fan of the people’s right to regress congress, and force a referendum. Of course I believe that this is a referendum that will violate the rights of a sector of society, and create a form of Civil Unrest, but whether anyone likes it or not they managed to get 170,000 legal signatures, and that is very difficult to do. I also believe that if it makes it to a vote that it will be totally shot down in flames, and the people of Massachusetts would finally be able to place that horrible nightmare behind them once and for all without having to go through all of the “should we or shouldn’t we have gay marriage” crap anymore.

The basic law on Constitutional Convention is that they only need 25 percent of the house to vote yes and the referendum is tabled for 2 years at which time the Constitutional Convention is brought again and another 25 percent will get it on the ballot. They have the 50 votes to get this passed through to the next stage, but there is another problem here, which is that the legislature in Massachusetts has other ways of making sure these things don’t happen, which requires the back room dealings that most people pretend to hate, but are cheering in Massachusetts right now as I type. Sal DiMasi simply does what they usually do in Massachusetts with the things they don’t like and works the back rooms to get the 101 votes needed to kill it off all together. Now mind you it isn’t exactly the way to kill it off properly, but it is a loophole that they have at their disposal that after they call the Constitutional Convention a member of the legislature then calls to recess, and a 50 percent vote will adjourn the Convention, and they never bring it up again. So here we have 170,000 people who had their rights stripped from them, and the people who don’t want to risk this vote are cheering because it was unfair to begin with. It’s a real pickle for someone like myself that thinks it is crappy on both ends.

Here’s where my problem really lay unfortunately is in the fact that I am a “State’s Rights” conservative that has a few hot stove issues that I am apposed to within my own party. Gay Marriage shouldn’t be a right, or a law, it should be a non issue because it really doesn’t pertain to being anyone’s business. Now as a conservative, I understand that most people believe that it is an issue with those evil people that love God, and that actually is not the whole scope of the argument about it. Some people believe that it is more of an issue of the “incentives” that the government gives for families, so that they can manage raising their children easier, so it falls into the category of Gay adoption, {which I also support} and then others find it to be more of an issue of “true equality” which means that they would need to succumb to all of the downfalls of being married as well, and don’t believe that they will be. I actually agree with that, but don’t care because there will always be people in this world that will achieve a “more equal” status based on white liberal guilt, and I am not getting an ulcer over it anymore. By placing the meat of the issue at the basis that it’s “Christian Fundamental Bigotry” actually {to me} makes your argument weak, as apposed to viable, even if it is the way to grab support unfortunately. By simply allowing the referendum to go through it would allow the people to again say “Gay Marriage is Fine and stop trying to take people’s rights away based on whatever” and let us get on with our lives, but that isn’t what THEY want.

It is after all about the hatred of your fellow man. To simply put it into perspective who actually is a bigot, and who isn’t will take away 80 percent of the extremely left leaning Massachusetts legislature’s campaigning strategy. It’s being used right now as they are trying to “out” every gay Republican in America {the newest being the head of the RNC} and then giving voice only to the 10 percent of the Republican Party that are willing to be idiots over this issue. They will never allow the 90 percent like me that think stupidity is relevant, and could give a crap who is gay or not, just that they vote the way I want them to most of the time. You can’t even start to remind a single person in this country that it was the Republicans that voted in “Equal Rights” in this country to begin with at every single turn. The ad that Al Gore ran during his presidential campaign was not a lie, when he said that his father was voted out of the Senate for his racial beliefs. The problem was it wasn’t the whole story, as he voted AGAINST equal rights for not only blacks but women as well, and a more growing Republican base at the time in Tennessee finally got rid of him. To actually let the people show that Gay Marriage is only an issue because it violates the civil rights of an entire sector of their population, and that the people truly don’t care to be a part of THAT would simply undermine the wonderful work that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Grace Ross, and so many others in the equal rights community do to make sure that people feel oppressed, and thus keeping them enslaved. ;8o)

Other Crap This Weirdo Publishes... The Crow's Nest {The Homepage of Jeremy Crow} Mental Notes & Random Musings {Daily Blog} Mental Rants & Political Rage {For Those That Like His Political Rantings} Mental Imagry & Random Perversion {Adult Stories .. Assume they are rated X} Itching For Coffee {Community Blog} Jeremy Crow on Twitter {For The Easily Amused} Blogaholics Anonymous {E-Mail Blogging Group}

Nothing that was printed here was intended to offend anyone, and if it did, screw ya, you begged for it. If you believe that there are some measures that can be taken to change me, then please feel free to pray for me, and while you are at it yourself, because you read this far, and if you hated every minute of it, then you are an idiot, not me, or the other people who like what I have to say! .. Jeremy

Want More Free Art? ...Visit the new angelis deZines on the web at jeremycrow4life.com/angelisdezines

All writings Copyright © 2009 & Beyond The Crows Nest