Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Don't vote? If you haven't voted yet here's a test for you. Score low enough and Don'tVote.org will tell you not to bother. Thanks to NewMexiKen (whom we tied with two wrong answers) for the link. "denver 2006" 6:57:41 PM

Referendum I and Amendment 43 There was a debate over Referendum I and Amendment 43 yesterday on the Auraria campus, according to the Rocky Mountain News. From the article, "For some students, it was a chance to gain extra credit. For debaters Jim Pfaff, of Focus on the Family, and Pat Steadman, of the Referendum I campaign, it was a chance to pitch their views. Ref I would allow gay couples to register as domestic partners and obtain many legal rights and responsibilities given to married couples. It is sponsored by Coloradans for Fairness. Focus on the Family is the most vocal opponent. Colorado voters also will decide Amendment 43, a state constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage. The issue is on the ballot in seven other states, but Colorado is the only place where voters are also being asked to approve domestic partnerships. "Gay rights groups across the country have been targeting young voters, especially those on college campuses, to build support for measures such as Referendum I. Polls and studies indicate that young voters are much more likely than older voters to support giving spousal rights to same-sex couples. Almost three out of four Colorado voters under 35 interviewed in a statewide poll in September said they support Referendum I. That is much higher than the 58 percent overall support for the measure in that poll. The poll of 500 likely voters was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for the Rocky Mountain News and CBS 4 News and had a margin of error of 4.38 percentage points... "Pfaff argued that Ref I is 'counterfeit marriage' because it creates a legal equivalent under state law to that institution for gay couples. He said marriage 'is not about the wants and needs of adults' but 'about the raising of children.' Pfaff said he doesn't believe that there is a 'compelling need' to give gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Steadman argued that Ref I fixes legal holes in state law. He said the measure is not marriage because it doesn't apply to federal laws regarding marriage and can't be recognized in other states. Steadman also contends that Ref I is better for children because it would force gay couples who separate to pay child support and otherwise be responsible for children they had raised together." "denver 2006" 6:27:20 AM

O'Brien or Rowland for lieutenant governor Candidate for lieutenant governor, Barbara O'Brien, showed up in Craig yesterday, according to the Craig Daily Press. This is a sure sign that Bill Ritter's campaign recognizes that the only poll that matters is going on right now and will end next Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. MDT. From the article, "Although polls have the democratic pair clearly in the lead to occupy the governor's mansion, O'Brien said she is telling people to get out the vote, and to vote for them... "Speaking to a crowd of about 25 people in the late afternoon at The Bookstore, O'Brien noted that it's been a long time since people outside of Denver felt included in the political process to elect a governor. She spoke briefly on schools, saying that she and Ritter supported Referendum C and they believe that community colleges benefited from the measure. And she hopes that Referendum J fails because schools should be able to decide on their own how their money is best spent. O'Brien would like to see more support for pre-school programs, saying that that is where children learn social skills and where they learn how to learn. She called pre-school, 'probably the best investment in education around.' When asked about the increasing number of unaffiliated voters in the state, O'Brien said that while that was the fastest growing segment of Colorado voters, she remained optimistic." "denver 2006" 6:07:41 AM

Rainy Side endorsements Coyote Gulch likes to keep an eye on the rainy side view of Colorado politics. Here are some of the endorsements from the Telluride Watch. They write, "Mostly because Coloradans have to wonder how Republican Bob Beauprez would have governed had his side in last year's debate on Referendum C, temporarily relaxing the Taxpayers Bill of rights, prevailed, his opponent Democratic opponent Bill Ritter has been dominating this contest. Beauprez succumbed to the far right impulse to always oppose taxes, even when basic government services are at stake and even when tax cuts are draconian. This is despite the fact that even current Governor Bill Owens, no flaming liberal, campaigned hard for Referendum C. Ritter, by comparison, understands that a growing state needs adequate revenues to maintain services, and he supported Referendum C. This is hardly the only difference between these two candidates, but it is all you really need to know to pick Ritter over Beauprez. Beauprez was a lackluster member of Congress, a seat he gave up to run for governor, and he has run a dismal campaign for governor. More reasons to support Ritter. Ritter has campaigned that he will bolster Colorado's energy production, with a strong emphasis on renewable sources, and create what he calls a 'New Energy Economy.' He recognizes that Colorado has shortsightedly shortchanged higher education. Ritter gets our vote... "Gay marriage, thankfully, seems to be losing its power to sway elections. The Republican Party has used this hot button issue to rally its religious base for several years now, despite the fact that Canada, several countries in Europe, and even the State of Massachusetts, have all survived letting homosexuals join together in marriage, with no apparent adverse consequences. Contrary to the overheated rhetoric of the right, the future of Western civilization is not at stake. If anything, gay marriage strengthens, and surely does not weaken, the institution of marriage. There are heartening signs of further progress in the battle for equal rights for gays... "The Libertarian view on this issue is surely the right one: We should keep the state out of 'marriage' entirely and allow couples of any sex to join together in civil unions, or contracts. If couples wish to 'marry,' let them do so in a church of their choosing. And if a church does not condone gay marriage, let that church refrain from conducting any such ceremony. This probably won't happen, however. So as long as the state is in the business of sanctioning marriages, gays should have the same access to it as anyone else. Coloradans have a chance to advance the cause on this issue at the polls next week by rejecting Amendment 43, which would amend the Colorado Constitution to define a marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and by approving Referendum I, which would amend the Colorado Revised Statutes to authorize domestic partnerships, expressly extending the right to enter into them to same-sex couples... "Proposed Amendment 41 to the Colorado Constitution, to impose stricter bans on gifts to public officials, may be another example of why voters should reject Amendment 38, which if adopted would make it easier to petition initiative and referendums onto the ballot. Here again is a complex matter - how to prevent corruption in government - that should not be dealt with in the form of an amendment to the state constitution. As written, amendment 41 includes terrific detail about what is and what is not an example of an improper gift, and would be subject to a great deal of interpretation, in part by a new state ethics board... "Another proposed amendment to the constitution, Amendment 42, would raise the minimum wage to $6.85 an hour (from $5.15, set by the federal government) and then index future increases to the rate of inflation in the Denver metro area. This would likely have minimal effect in Telluride, where average earnings are generally well above the minimum wage anyway. The minimum wage should be above $5.15 an hour, and if Democrats win control of even one house of Congress, an increase in the federal minimum wage is likely to be among their first orders of business. An increase in the minimum wage by Congress at the federal level is the right way to go with this issue - not yet another amendment to the overburdened Colorado Constitution. Since it appears likely that Congress will be acting, we recommend a no vote on 42... "Will America ever be ready to admit that the War on Drugs is a failure? Can we recognize that drug abuse is a health issue, not a matter for law enforcement? With so many Americans worried about the vulnerability of their children, it is politically incorrect to argue for relaxing drug laws. But we should stop burdening our police and filling our prisons with people guilty of minor drug offenses. It is more symbolic than practical, but we support Amendment 44, to decriminalize the possession one ounce or less of marijuana by persons older than 21. Currently, possession of small amounts of marijuana is only a petty offense, subject to a fine of $100. Why bother? "Referendum K would direct the Colorado Attorney General to initiate or join other states in suing the federal government to demand the enforcement of existing immigration laws. Those of us who live in ski towns know first-hand how much immigrants contribute to our community, whether they arrived here legally or not. The entire immigration contretemps strikes us as a distraction from real issues. We urge a no vote on this mean-spirited question." "denver 2006" 5:55:17 AM

© Copyright 2009 John Orr. Last update: 3/14/09; 8:43:23 PM.