Vote Early, Vote Often
As a writer, I'm usually a little more circumspect about things than I probably need to be. As I was exercising my right to vote this morning, I thought about exactly what it costs me to be able to directly influence the direction our government chooses to go. Even though my vote is only one among many, I have an obligation to weigh in on those issues that are important to me because too many people have given everything, including their lives, to allow me the privilege to be part of this democracy.
Does one vote count? That's the common excuse for not taking the time to vote and it's an absurdly selfish notion. You're not supposed to have so much pull in the process that you can single handedly influence the direction of this country. You're only supposed to do your part.
Missouri is the first in the nation to allow voters to choose whether or not to amend the state constitution to define marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. I voted an emphatic "YES" to protect the definition of marriage that has existed for all human history. It's unfortunate it has to be spelled out so plainly.
I also voted against allowing more riverboat gambling as our state has experimented with this too much already. States, in general, are spending about $3 in social expenses for every $1 in tax revenue generated by gambling. Our state is already strapped for cash and our Democratic governor is robbing Peter to pay Paul by raiding the money that's supposed to go to our schools.
There is no excuse for anyone to not exercise their right to vote. It may take some forethought on your part, in the way of an absentee ballot, but if you don't take the time to respect the deaths of millions of Americans, then you have no foundation from which to complain!
Does one vote count? That's the common excuse for not taking the time to vote and it's an absurdly selfish notion. You're not supposed to have so much pull in the process that you can single handedly influence the direction of this country. You're only supposed to do your part.
Missouri is the first in the nation to allow voters to choose whether or not to amend the state constitution to define marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. I voted an emphatic "YES" to protect the definition of marriage that has existed for all human history. It's unfortunate it has to be spelled out so plainly.
I also voted against allowing more riverboat gambling as our state has experimented with this too much already. States, in general, are spending about $3 in social expenses for every $1 in tax revenue generated by gambling. Our state is already strapped for cash and our Democratic governor is robbing Peter to pay Paul by raiding the money that's supposed to go to our schools.
There is no excuse for anyone to not exercise their right to vote. It may take some forethought on your part, in the way of an absentee ballot, but if you don't take the time to respect the deaths of millions of Americans, then you have no foundation from which to complain!
posted by J. Brisbin @ 8/03/2004 03:29:00 PM
1 Comments:
I agree how imperative it is to vote. By the way, it's good to see a writer's blog -- I am one myself, or an aspiring one anyway. But marriage is not a state institution. You're right, it has existed through all human history, and that's what makes this country different. Marriage was, first and always, a religious institution, and because our nation, in its inception and in the formation of the government we were most modeled it after (Britain's), were both Christian, it was added on later that it was an institution of the state. It was more convenient to blend church and state that way. Let me also say that the United States always considered itself a great champion for equality and yet was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Eugenics for the greater part of a century. Marriage is a right independent of state, and individuals should have that unalienable right. Will you deny the pursuit of happiness to American citizens just because THEIR definition of marriage does not fit YOUR definition? What does this have to do with the Law, the State that we as citizens have a duty to champion and always, always reform as needed? Is this country for the few, by the few? And having "civil unions" is just as divisive a move. If we are so desperate to "separate these people from the rest of us", why don't we just give them different drinking fountains?
Post a Comment
<< Home