Welcome to the 19th century

Not a great day for Wisconsin. Many/most of my candidates did make it through yesterday but both referendums (that mattered) passed, neither of which I supported.

I guess my personal viewpoint is that the death penalty referendum passing is "unfortunate". I really don't support it, but at least this is only "advisory". Meaning that the governor and others would still need to actually approve in order for things to change. To be honest, I haven't done a whole lot of checking on how likely this is, but I'm assuming that Doyle (who won by a landslide in the end) won't go for it.

The real reason it's embarrassing to live in Wisconsin this morning is the amendment to our constitution approved yesterday.


"Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"

It's not exactly a smooth read. It certainly could be less wordy and more clear, perhaps (as a friend suggested yesterday) it should have read: "Do you want discrimination to be written into our constitution?", but that can't account for the incredible margin this passed by: 59%-41%.

Yes, that's right: It's the 21st century and we're voting in overwhelming numbers to add blatant discrimination to the constitution. I guess it just wasn't illegal enough already.

At least it looks like AZ got it right.

Eminent Domain

As we probably all know, the Supreme Court ruled the other day that eminent domain can be used in cases where "public good supersedes conventional private property rights". With my limited understanding this basically has meant that where previously you had to be displaced by something like "your land is the only practical location for this interstate" to "your land would make a great location for a giant tax-generating corporate headquarters".

In Justice O'Connor's dissent she says:
Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

Evidently, conservatives like Logan Darrow Clements think that this is a great idea. He's asked the town of Weare, N.H., to seize Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter's house so that he can build a hotel and museum on the property! His plan includes the "Just Desserts Cafe", a museum on the loss of freedom in America, and instead of a Gideon's Bible: each guest would receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Classic.