I think these close, nervewracking elections show several things. One of them is that a lot of people in this country are looking for a religious leader in the United States. I find this fascinating because a lot of these same people cry out against religious leaders in other countries, talking about how wrong it is. I also think that for a lot of people, the two big candidates are so similar that the choice was difficult. I know many moderate voters who really were up in the air with their votes until the last minute.
Honestly, I don't know how that happens, but I suppose if one has strong opinions about social issues /and/ financial issues one would be in a quandary. I guess that's why the Libertarian party has built up some steam.
I think the general public was misinformed about the breadth of this amendment, and worse than that, I believe they were /purposefully/ misinformed so that they would vote Yes On One. So many political leaders and churches presented this solely as a "Stop Gay Marriage!" law without going through each and every point of these tricky words. You could see a lot of things changing in Ohio in the days to come. It's too soon to tell. OSU should be /very/ wary of losing good, intelligent people to states that aren't "scared" enough to have /both/ a "Defense of Marriage" law AND a constitutional amendment.
So many political leaders and churches presented this solely as a "Stop Gay Marriage!" law without going through each and every point of these tricky words. You could see a lot of things changing in Ohio in the days to come.
You've hit the nail on the head. I talked to one person yesterday who abstained from voting on Issue 1 here in Ohio simply because once she saw it on the ballot she wasn't sure exactly what it would mean if it passed. Rather than cast an uninformed vote, she opted to abstain.
Leading up to the election, I heard very little about the broad language contained in the second sentence of Issue 1, and people I talked to about it were largely unaware of what passing it really meant. It was touted - as you point out - simply as a "Stop Gay Marriage" law. The opponents to the amendment didn't seem to be able to make their voices heard in the media.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 05:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 12:50 pm (UTC)Honestly, I don't know how that happens, but I suppose if one has strong opinions about social issues /and/ financial issues one would be in a quandary. I guess that's why the Libertarian party has built up some steam.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 10:38 am (UTC)And THIS Ohioan is not against same-sex marriage....
For your sakes, I'm glad you moved out there too. :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 12:52 pm (UTC)Talk about overkill.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 04:06 pm (UTC)You've hit the nail on the head. I talked to one person yesterday who abstained from voting on Issue 1 here in Ohio simply because once she saw it on the ballot she wasn't sure exactly what it would mean if it passed. Rather than cast an uninformed vote, she opted to abstain.
Leading up to the election, I heard very little about the broad language contained in the second sentence of Issue 1, and people I talked to about it were largely unaware of what passing it really meant. It was touted - as you point out - simply as a "Stop Gay Marriage" law. The opponents to the amendment didn't seem to be able to make their voices heard in the media.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 01:09 pm (UTC)And here I was hoping that it would get voted down and we could bribe you into moving back.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 02:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 03:01 am (UTC)