Voting...

It is election day tomorrow. Yesterday before heading to some friend's house Michael read the Analysis of the 2006 Ballot Proposals - the Blue Book of the Elections while I was getting a cake together to bring with us to our friends. I was confused on a few things that were coming up to vote on. But there were a few sections that annoyed me of course too.

Domestic Partnerships
The mail ads I have getting for domestic partnership make it really confusing for me. The ads come for a group I tend to usually agree with but the ads kept saying "It's not marriage." And that bothered me. I understand why they were putting it that way. So that maybe those that don't want those of the same sex to get married will at least give same-sex couples domestic partnership. But just like New Jersey - it isn't marriage. And it bothers me that people won't let those that want to get married - get married. So Michael read me the actual referendum and then the pros and cons they print. And of course the cons...and well the pros also did a little too because of just how they worded things. One of the cons that annoyed me......

"Domestic partnerships diminish the significance of marriage for society by reducing marriage to a list of benefits and responsibilities. The benefits given to married couples are intended to support child rearing by one man and one woman. The state has an interest in restricting recognition and legal protection to these married couples to provide stability for the individuals, their families and the broader community."

Yes insert rolling eyes. Like a same-sex couple can't support and raise a child? Grrr! All in all I am not happy that they aren't allowing marriage. And this just seems like it is better then nothing and maybe will make it easier in the future. And so I am of course voting yes on it.

Which brings me to the next one...

Marriage
Another thing up is an amendment that proposes adding a new section about marriage. Basically defining marriage as one man one woman. So you know I was all growly about that one.

And of course one their pro arguments...(rolling eyes and sighing)

"The public has an interest in preserving the commonly accepted definition of marriage. Marriage as an institution has historically consisted of one man and one woman and as such provides the optimal environment for creating, nurturing and protecting children and preserving families."

Grrrrr! Commonly accepted definition because people don't get love is love. And you can't help who you love. Of course again stating that a family is only one man and one woman with children. So of course voting no on that one.

Getting lots of repeat political calls? Check this link out, and this one and this one. We haven't actually had these but I have heard that some people aren't going to vote because they have been getting so many calls and seeing so many negative television ads.

A GREAT SOURCE for political links and thoughts is Twistedchick's Free Speech Zone.

So tomorrow we vote. I am hoping and praying things get better. I have literally been scared and so sad how this country has been heading since Bush has come into office. I have cried and laid at awake at night because of it. And so as I said...hoping and praying.

Edit: (added 7:34pm)
Talking to a good friend, she pointed out that actually the nation should not get involved in marriage at all. That everyone should have be domestic partners but that marriage should be something each church decides. That for our laws of country if you want to file joint taxes, you want the rights given to you as a spouse, you want to live in together in union as a couple then those that do should file for domestic partnership. And if you want a religious marriage ceremony then you go to your church of choice for a marriage ceremony. And that makes sense to me. That is a TRUE separation of church and state to me. Then the state is not involved in the religious aspect of marriage. And the church is not meddling in who wants to live together in a domestic partnership.