Every Time It's Put To A Vote...

[Kathianne]

Now this strikes me as a bit weird, after all there's no changes to 'their own' benefits. Question is was the 'No' aimed at LGBT or unmarried heteros?

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/09/22/Unions-reject-partner-benefits.html


Unions reject partner benefits BY IGNAZIO MESSINA
BLADE STAFF WRITER

The majority of members belonging to three city of Toledo union locals declined to let employees in domestic partnerships receive the same health-insurance benefits extended to spouses of legally married city employees — something that Mayor Mike Bell and city council approved this year.


The Toledo Police Patrolman’s Association and two units of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 7, in three separate votes, rejected the benefit.


Don Czerniak, Local 7 president, said the employees overwhelmingly disagreed with extending the benefit to unmarried couples — which could have covered both heterosexual and same-sex couples who register as domestic partners...

[LiberalNation]

and ya wonder why gays want marriage. It's all about equal benifits. Money is a major motivator.

[red states rule]

and ya wonder why gays want marriage. It's all about equal benifits. Money is a major motivator.

and people in Hell want ice water. You can want all oyu want LN - a majority of voters (even in liberal CA) are saying no on this

[tailfins]

and ya wonder why gays want marriage. It's all about equal benefits. Money is a major motivator.

Interesting perspective. On the other side, the AFSCME members are only liberal when it butters their own bread. It appears those who voted no were against dividing their benefits fund with more people. I'm against gay marriage because it trivializes marriage.

[LiberalNation]

so does divorce lol.

[Trigg]

interresting since presumably the cost of their healthcare cost wouldn't go up since everyone is paying into it.


LiberalNation:

1. you're right divorce trivializes marriage. People aren't interrested in working things out anymore since a divorce is so easy to get.

2. I don't understand why gays don't fight for legal partnerships that guarantee them the same rights are marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and IMHO it should stay that way. I have nothing against gays and legal partnerships. But, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to get the definition of marriage changed.

[fj1200]

Now this strikes me as a bit weird, after all there's no changes to 'their own' benefits. Question is was the 'No' aimed at LGBT or unmarried heteros?

I wonder if they recognize that their is a cost incurred even if there's no change to benefits.


and people in Hell want ice water. You can want all oyu want LN - a majority of voters (even in liberal CA) are saying no on this

That doesn't speak to her comment. Straights are favored by the status quo.

[fj1200]

But, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to get the definition of marriage changed.

How else are they to fight not being favored by the status quo?

[LiberalNation]

2. I don't understand why gays don't fight for legal partnerships that guarantee them the same rights are marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and IMHO it should stay that way. I have nothing against gays and legal partnerships. But, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to get the definition of marriage changed.

bc we learned from the past seperate is never equal. legal partnerships would be descriminated against.

[Trigg]

bc we learned from the past seperate is never equal. legal partnerships would be descriminated against.


how exactly?

If legal partnerships were given EVERY right that married couples get what is the problem?

Other than the word marriage what would gays gain?

[SassyLady]

how exactly?

If legal partnerships were given EVERY right that married couples get what is the problem?

Other than the word marriage what would gays gain?

I think they want to be "married" so that their relationships are viewed as normal. If civil unions are ruled to have all the same benefits as a marriage then I can no other reason for them to want to change the definition of marriage.

[glockmail]

Well Sass they are not normal, since "normal" is what most people do. If they want to be treated with respect then they shouldn't go around showing disrespect to the majority and important, long-standing societal institutions.

[Abbey Marie]

I think they want to be "married" so that their relationships are viewed as normal. If civil unions are ruled to have all the same benefits as a marriage then I can no other reason for them to want to change the definition of marriage.

They are closer to achieving this by being represented as normal on TV, than by getting marriage licenses. It's like a full-on campaign on sitcoms, especially. But I believe that no matter how they try, the majority of people will never see their "activities" as normal. Because, well, they're not.

[jimnyc]

and ya wonder why gays want marriage. It's all about equal benifits. Money is a major motivator.

Yeah, I can imagine, greed and money are wonderful motivators for people to want to have their love recognized as a marriage. Funny thing is, a few years ago when this really got rolling, it was all about "love" and being treated equally. If that be the case, hand out civil unions with similar benefits. Actually stop benefits from the government to married people as well and let people who want the greedy stuff pay for it, get contracts and do it without expecting the government to hold their hands for them.

Anyone looking to get married solely for benefits or money, don't truly love their partner. If they told me back in 1994 that I would get zero benefits marrying my wife, just a marriage certificate and a blessed union from the Church, I would have done nothing differently.

[jimnyc]

how exactly?

If legal partnerships were given EVERY right that married couples get what is the problem?

Other than the word marriage what would gays gain?

They want "acceptance" and to be told that their relationships are literally no different than a man and woman getting married. But lets face facts, it IS different. Does that mean we should discriminate? Nope. But most discrimination in this world is absolutely legal. Civil unions would identical benefits or lack of benefits solve the issue - but gays will say the title is different then, which is ridiculous. Marriage should be a religious institution all by itself and if someone doesn't qualify for that, well then too bad, they can get a civil union from the justice of the peace and hopefully get recognized with identical benefits.

[Thunderknuckles]

Anyone attempting to look at this outside of gay partnerships?
They're a small minority, a vocal one to be sure. What this really comes down to is the costs involved in offering coverage to unmarried heterosexual couples.
Anyone dating can register as a "domestic partnership" and then both parties are covered.
I can understand why people would be against covering domestic partnerships. It will jack up costs because anyone "playing house" now gets covered.

[glockmail]

Surely there must be one gay lawyer who could write up a simple contract between partners to address all the claimed issues.

[fj1200]

Surely there must be one gay lawyer who could write up a simple contract between partners to address all the claimed issues.

No contract can cover the automatics of being married, insurance coverage, Social Security, inheritance issues, etc. But IMO any marriage should be governed by contract and not a definition created by the State.

[glockmail]

No contract can cover the automatics of being married, insurance coverage, Social Security, inheritance issues, etc. But IMO any marriage should be governed by contract and not a definition created by the State.Then lobby the insurance industry, fix the fucked-up social security system. There is no issue with inheritance laws; you're blowing smoke there.

[fj1200]

Then lobby the insurance industry, fix the fucked-up social security system. There is no issue with inheritance laws; you're blowing smoke there.

The insurance industry isn't the driver, it's those who offer benefits to employees, i.e. the city and union in the case of the OP. Social Security is government, who else do they go to for redress. And the last part? Just incorrect; unlimited marital transfers as an example.

[glockmail]

The insurance industry isn't the driver, it's those who offer benefits to employees, i.e. the city and union in the case of the OP. Social Security is government, who else do they go to for redress. And the last part? Just incorrect; unlimited marital transfers as an example.
So lobby the drivers and the government. A simple POA will allow unlimited transfers, so yes, you were incorrect.

[fj1200]

So lobby the drivers and the government. A simple POA will allow unlimited transfers, so yes, you were incorrect.

No. A Power of Attorney has zero to do with tax free marital transfers.

[glockmail]

No. A Power of Attorney has zero to do with tax free marital transfers.So there is some arbitrary limit of cash gifts that most people will never approach. Lobby GovCo to raise it or remove it, for everyone or just your chosen special one.

[fj1200]

So there is some arbitrary limit of cash gifts that most people will never approach. Lobby GovCo to raise it or remove it, for everyone or just your chosen special one.

The gift tax? It's not hard to reach 13k per year especially when you're "married." Besides, that's exactly what they're doing, lobbying to change one law versus hundreds that mention marriage.

[glockmail]

The gift tax? It's not hard to reach 13k per year especially when you're "married." Besides, that's exactly what they're doing, lobbying to change one law versus hundreds that mention marriage. $13k is a lot of money to most. I guess you must be an evil rich guy.

The one "marriage law" is actually something like 48, all in different states, and one that 60% or more of folks are against. How many folks are against basic fairness, or getting rid of stupid laws altogether? Probably most. It seems to me you should go with the flow instead of fighting the tide. A different, hidden agenda perhaps? :laugh:

[Kathianne]

For the past 3 years, my income never rose beyond $18k. I'm 57, functionally deaf. Have 3 BA degrees, and am 2 courses short of MSED. Degrees are from U of IL, U of Chicago, Elmhurst College.

It's a tough market out there in any case. Even with superior grades and CV, it's tough if other issues like age and handicaps come into play.

[glockmail]

Mine took a huge hit as well. Since The Obama I've never made more than a third that I did during the Bush years. My clients are contractors and developers, doing nearly all private work. I've seen them reduce salaries by half, then half again, then let guys go, then most go out of business. My client base is maybe 20% of what it was. When this is all over it will take me years to build it back up. By that time I'll be retired.

Oh that's right, I never built it in the first place.

[glockmail]

My biggest client left has switched over from building private office buildings and retail spaces to medical and government buildings. Those are the only areas with any growth. I use to make $5k on a job designing metal stud curtain walls, and to make it easy for the crew I'd draw elevations of every wall and place every stud, header and sill. Since I basically "built" the building on paper, many times I've found inconsistencies on the architectural or structural plans and saved the owner big bucks by correcting the situation before steel starts getting placed. Now I can only charge $2k per job, so I draw the plans more generic, with tables and notes for special cases. There's no way I can find cost savings for the owner that way, but they want to save pennies up front, then fight for the dollars with the blame game later on.

[fj1200]

$13k is a lot of money to most. I guess you must be an evil rich guy.

13k is nothing when we're talking about inheritance, which we were, but then you brought up gifts. You could have said that the estate tax exclusion, currently 1mm+, won't touch most people but you didn't. The fact remains that a straight married couple has an inheritance benefit, along with many other state defined automatic advantages, that are not available to other couples.


The one "marriage law" is actually something like 48, all in different states, and one that 60% or more of folks are against. How many folks are against basic fairness, or getting rid of stupid laws altogether? Probably most. It seems to me you should go with the flow instead of fighting the tide.

The one "marriage definition" would affect countless Federal statutes along with DOMA which keeps state defined marriage from affecting Federal legislation. 60% are against? Sure, but 60% of the voters in AL in 2000 were against interracial marriage, which had been unconstitutional for 30? years, so to say that we should hold every issue up for a vote is ridiculous IMO. Unless you're against our representative form of government that is.


A different, hidden agenda perhaps? :laugh:

Oh, I get it. :laugh: The last shot of a losing argument. ;)

[glockmail]

13k is nothing when we're talking about inheritance, which we were, but then you brought up gifts. You could have said that the estate tax exclusion, currently 1mm+, won't touch most people but you didn't. The fact remains that a straight married couple has an inheritance benefit, along with many other state defined automatic advantages, that are not available to other couples.



The one "marriage definition" would affect countless Federal statutes along with DOMA which keeps state defined marriage from affecting Federal legislation. 60% are against? Sure, but 60% of the voters in AL in 2000 were against interracial marriage, which had been unconstitutional for 30? years, so to say that we should hold every issue up for a vote is ridiculous IMO. Unless you're against our representative form of government that is.



Oh, I get it. :laugh: The last shot of a losing argument. ;)

Again, I guess you must be evil rich. The most that I ever inherited was a radio.

You should be lobbying to keep government out of social engineering, not wanting more of it.

I am greatly amused at you tossing the race card out. That's the last, desperate shot of a losing argument.
:lol:

[fj1200]

Again, I guess you must be evil rich. The most that I ever inherited was a radio.

You should be lobbying to keep government out of social engineering, not wanting more of it.

I am greatly amused at you tossing the race card out. That's the last, desperate shot of a losing argument.
:lol:

The race card? Are you seeing things again? You are, however, up a radio on me.

You could also indicate where I've advocated social engineering. I've been calling for the elimination of government favoring certain interpersonal relationships for quite some time.

[glockmail]

No one here is that dumb (except for Gabs) to believe that equating interracial marriage restrictions with gay marriage isn't the race card.

You have been advocating social engineering here by not wanting to change or eliminate the laws that treat gays (according to you) unfairly, and instead change the very definition of words.

[fj1200]

No one here is that dumb (except for Gabs) to believe that equating interracial marriage restrictions with gay marriage isn't the race card.

:rolleyes: So an example of dumb voters casting dumb votes on the question of marriage is the race card? My apologies, I'll try not to bring up any more relevant history, it is apparently too confusing for some here.


You have been advocating social engineering here by not wanting to change or eliminate the laws that treat gays (according to you) unfairly, and instead change the very definition of words.

You should work on your reading comprehension. I've been showing how our current laws are already social engineering; it's the majority that are just happy when that engineering is in their favor. For much longer than this thread on this forum, and in this thread on this forum, I have called for removing any definition of marriage in current legislation and simply leaving the matter of "marriage" to religious institutions.

Which word have I wanted to redefine?

[glockmail]

:rolleyes: So an example of dumb voters casting dumb votes on the question of marriage is the race card? My apologies, I'll try not to bring up any more relevant history, it is apparently too confusing for some here.



You should work on your reading comprehension. I've been showing how our current laws are already social engineering; it's the majority that are just happy when that engineering is in their favor. For much longer than this thread on this forum, and in this thread on this forum, I have called for removing any definition of marriage in current legislation and simply leaving the matter of "marriage" to religious institutions.

Which word have I wanted to redefine?

1. It's not relevant. Bans on interracial marriage aren't similar at all to bans on calling relationships between gays legal marriage. You tossing it out is "the race card". I'm not surprised that you lack the balls to admit that simple fact.
2. I have long advocated elimination of laws that the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to administer, and that includes of course all that are reflective of "social engineering". You stated that you don't want to change such laws, that you'd rather use the the Federal government to force the states to change the legal definition of the word marriage. Since you don't see that as advocating social engineering it is clear that it is you with comprehension issues.
3. You want to redefine "marriage", duh.

[fj1200]

1. It's not relevant. Bans on interracial marriage aren't similar at all to bans on calling relationships between gays legal marriage. You tossing it out is "the race card". I'm not surprised that you lack the balls to admit that simple fact.

It was a reference to voting patterns which is directly related to ballot initiatives that are happening all over the country; I didn't say gay rights = civil rights. Facts elude you.


2. I have long advocated elimination of laws that the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to administer, and that includes of course all that are reflective of "social engineering". You stated that you don't want to change such laws, that you'd rather use the the Federal government to force the states to change the legal definition of the word marriage. Since you don't see that as advocating social engineering it is clear that it is you with comprehension issues.

It seems we agree on eliminating laws. Where did I say I don't want to change laws eliminating references to marriage?


3. You want to redefine "marriage", duh.

Where?

[Abbey Marie]

I think people need to step back and really think about what effect eliminating marriage as the norm in society will have on our country. And that is what will eventually happen if you leave it to religious institutions only.

[glockmail]

It was a reference to voting patterns which is directly related to ballot initiatives that are happening all over the country; I didn't say gay rights = civil rights. Facts elude you.



It seems we agree on eliminating laws. Where did I say I don't want to change laws eliminating references to marriage?



Where?
1. You clearly meant that, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to equate interracial marriage laws with gay marriage laws.
2, 3. Post 24.

[glockmail]

I think people need to step back and really think about what effect eliminating marriage as the norm in society will have on our country. And that is what will eventually happen if you leave it to religious institutions only.I don't care if lesser religious sects do it. I don't care if States do it. Just don't force my religion or state to accept your sect or state's bastardization of marriage.

[Thunderknuckles]

Looks like France is taking the bold move of re-defining the family unit. The words Mother and Father will be banned and replaced with the word "parents" in all legal documentation under plans to legalize gay marriage.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/25/france-set-to-ban-words-mother-and-father-under-plans-to-legalize-gay-marriage/

What an absolute absurdity. All thanks to a vocal minority of same sex loving cry babies.

Up next: Replacing the M and F check boxes on legal forms with "Gender Affiliation"

[Abbey Marie]

I don't care if lesser religious sects do it. I don't care if States do it. Just don't force my religion or state to accept your sect or state's bastardization of marriage.

I hear you glock. I don't want that at all.
I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. I see marriage as the bedrock of society, and I don't want to give it up as a prevalent civil institution because of said bastardization. I think it will cause a decline in our society like none we've ever seen.

[logroller]

I think people need to step back and really think about what effect eliminating marriage as the norm in society will have on our country. And that is what will eventually happen if you leave it to religious institutions only.
I don't think marriage is the social norm now. I guess it depends on how you define marriage; I was always of the opinion it was a blessed union between man and wife...but that's not how much of our society treats it any longer. I agree its troubling, but the state has been anything but silent, its been integral. To assume religious institutions would fail to promote marriage and its social grace is to renounce the divine providence of free will. That's a far more troubling consideration IMHO.

[fj1200]

1. You clearly meant that, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to equate interracial marriage laws with gay marriage laws.

Bull. You brought up polls and this whole thread is about voting so an example of dumb voters making dumb decisions is completely relevant.


2, 3. Post 24.

Try again.

The gift tax? It's not hard to reach 13k per year especially when you're "married." Besides, that's exactly what they're doing, lobbying to change one law versus hundreds that mention marriage.
"They" as in those who want it changed. I haven't seen stretching like this since abouttime failed to point out my liberal positions.

[fj1200]

I think people need to step back and really think about what effect eliminating marriage as the norm in society will have on our country. And that is what will eventually happen if you leave it to religious institutions only.

A government definition is not the bedrock of society. You can argue that families are and there are multiple families in my neighborhood that don't qualify for the traditional measure. If you want the benefits of a family to accrue to the children then wouldn't you be supportive of societal validation?

[glockmail]

I hear you glock. I don't want that at all.
I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. I see marriage as the bedrock of society, and I don't want to give it up as a prevalent civil institution because of said bastardization. I think it will cause a decline in our society like none we've ever seen. I think it will too, but I don't care what happens in Massachusetts and California. I'm libertarian that way. I don't care if they all commit suicide, as long as I don't have to pay to bury the bodies.

[glockmail]

Bull. You brought up polls and this whole thread is about voting so an example of dumb voters making dumb decisions is completely relevant.



Try again.

"They" as in those who want it changed. I haven't seen stretching like this since abouttime failed to point out my liberal positions.

1. You brought up interracial marriage and tried to equate it with gay marriage. You threw the race card, indicating the desperation of your argument.

2. You stated: "lobbying to change one law versus hundreds that mention marriage". That's pretty clear that you "don't want to change laws eliminating references to marriage".

[fj1200]

1. You brought up interracial marriage and tried to equate it with gay marriage. You threw the race card, indicating the desperation of your argument.

2. You stated: "lobbying to change one law versus hundreds that mention marriage". That's pretty clear that you "don't want to change laws eliminating references to marriage".

Do you always misread posts that badly?

[glockmail]

Do you always misread posts that badly?When did you stop beating your wife?

Yours is the last dying gasp of a defeated debater. :clap:

[aboutime]

I think it will too, but I don't care what happens in Massachusetts and California. I'm libertarian that way. I don't care if they all commit suicide, as long as I don't have to pay to bury the bodies.


glockmail. I'm with you. By the way. No need to pay to bury the bodies. The walking dead are still voting, and will vote for Obama again.

No miss, no foul!

[glockmail]

glockmail. I'm with you. By the way. No need to pay to bury the bodies. The walking dead are still voting, and will vote for Obama again.

No miss, no foul!

In that case I'll run the bulldozer myself in order to keep the zombies from voting. :laugh:

[fj1200]

When did you stop beating your wife?

Yours is the last dying gasp of a defeated debater. :clap:

Oh please, you've got to work hard to be as wrong as you have been in this thread. Or do you still think you can get around Federal estate tax laws with a "simple" power-of-attorney?

[glockmail]

Oh please, you've got to work hard to be as wrong as you have been in this thread. Or do you still think you can get around Federal estate tax laws with a "simple" power-of-attorney?Again, you should be lobbying to change ridiculous laws that discriminate against gays, not trying to change the definition of marriage. You will find lots of support on the former, lots of opposition on the latter. :slap:

[fj1200]

Again, you should be lobbying to change ridiculous laws that discriminate against gays, not trying to change the definition of marriage. You will find lots of support on the former, lots of opposition on the latter. :slap:

They are lobbying. Amazingly, they aren't finding much support from those that benefit from government favor.

[glockmail]

They are lobbying. Amazingly, they aren't finding much support from those that benefit from government favor. Perhaps if they spent less effort offending the approximately 60% of the population who support traditional marriage and more effort siding with folks who support less government then they would find that support for less government.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In that case I'll run the bulldozer myself in order to keep the zombies from voting. :laugh:

Ever notice that the zombies voting always seem to vote dem. I have and my conclusion is that down there the devil is a dem and programs them before sending them from the graveyard to vote.-;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't think marriage is the social norm now. I guess it depends on how you define marriage; I was always of the opinion it was a blessed union between man and wife...but that's not how much of our society treats it any longer. I agree its troubling, but the state has been anything but silent, its been integral. To assume religious institutions would fail to promote marriage and its social grace is to renounce the divine providence of free will. That's a far more troubling consideration IMHO.

No , what is far more troubling is that the majority keeps voting to not allow gay marriage yet the demands of the minority are held to be of far more importance than are the wishes of the majority ! This trend is amplified by our media and other assorted ignorant appeasors IMHO. What we often face now is the leftist version of tyranny of and by the minority. Nice to see your rock solid defense of conservative value on the traditional institution of marraige. :laugh:

[glockmail]

Ever notice that the zombies voting always seem to vote dem. I have and my conclusion is that down there the devil is a dem and programs them before sending them from the graveyard to vote.-;)
That would explain all the dead people voting.

[fj1200]

Perhaps if they spent less effort offending the approximately 60% of the population who support traditional marriage and more effort siding with folks who support less government then they would find that support for less government.

Yeah, perhaps. :rolleyes:


No , what is far more troubling is that the majority keeps voting to not allow gay marriage yet the demands of the minority are held to be of far more importance than are the wishes of the majority ! This trend is amplified by our media and other assorted ignorant appeasors IMHO. What we often face now is the leftist version of tyranny of and by the minority. Nice to see your rock solid defense of conservative value on the traditional institution of marraige. :laugh:

I thought you were a small government kind of guy. Why are you so insistent on being protected from the minority? I also thought you claimed that pure democracy was a tool of tyranny.

Yup, here it is:

A pure democracy is mob rule, plain and simple. We were founded as a Republic not a pure democracy...

[glockmail]

Yeah, perhaps. :rolleyes:

That is why support of the Democrat party by gays is so retarded.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't think marriage is the social norm now. I guess it depends on how you define marriage; I was always of the opinion it was a blessed union between man and wife...but that's not how much of our society treats it any longer. I agree its troubling, but the state has been anything but silent, its been integral. To assume religious institutions would fail to promote marriage and its social grace is to renounce the divine providence of free will. That's a far more troubling consideration IMHO.

If you can't define marriage, then you will never see it as the norm to begin with.

Most people I know, know what marriage is, and either are married, were married, or want to get married, at least by a certain age. The fact that there is divorce does not mean marriage is not the norm. Apples and oranges.

I never said religious institutions would fail to promote marriage. What I believe is, that won't be enough. Right now it is ubiquitous and what most people strive for. The rest of the bolded sentence probably makes sense in your mind, but not on the screen.

[Robert A Whit]

Oh please, you've got to work hard to be as wrong as you have been in this thread. Or do you still think you can get around Federal estate tax laws with a "simple" power-of-attorney?

Ever heard of Joint Tenancy?

Homosexuals can take title or add to the title the other person has a Joint Tenant. Then the IRS won't hammer them. However, a very good lawyer well experienced with estate laws should do the agreement.

[fj1200]

Ever heard of Joint Tenancy?

Homosexuals can take title or add to the title the other person has a Joint Tenant. Then the IRS won't hammer them. However, a very good lawyer well experienced with estate laws should do the agreement.

You might want to do a little research on JT, estate taxes and gift taxes (http://www.okbar.org/public/brochures/jtbroc.htm) are still applicable and bring up a whole host of other issues. Of course you simply raising the point you acknowledge that straights have advantages bestowed by marriage then gays. Whether the IRS "hammers" them or not, they are still subject to tax laws.

[red states rule]

One of the benefits of gay marrage becoming law in America is that wedding planners could plan their own wedding :laugh:

[mundame]

Every time it's put to a vote?

It's being put to a vote in Maryland this election and I don't know how its polling; if anyone knows, please post it.

About the only reason I'm going to the polls this Election Day is to vote against homosexual marriage.

[glockmail]

Every time it's put to a vote?

It's being put to a vote in Maryland this election and I don't know how its polling; if anyone knows, please post it.

About the only reason I'm going to the polls this Election Day is to vote against homosexual marriage.

A few months ago we voted in a traditional marriage amendment to the state constitution. 61% voted for it, a huge victory. :salute: