Irony this delicious, this obvious, simply can not be left unappreciated.Consider, please, the fact that one of the most vociferous supporters of the constitutional amendment advisory vote was District 7's own Mike Kelly.
Above, left: Coghill, Kelly, frontrunners for the FBH 2007 Used Honeybucket On Their Porch for Craptastic Behavior AwardHowever, despite his letter prior to the election to House District 7 voters that urged them to vote 'yes' in an offhanded way, the majority of the voters in his district, myself included, voted 'no.' In other words, we voted that we do not want to vote on a constitutional amendment.
So, the advice from District 7, which had one of the highest voter turnouts of all Alaska districts, to Mike Kelly is "NO." In theory, this means that Kelly would shut the hell up about it and go on to more pressing state business, like the AGIA or something. Advice, advisory vote, etc.
But nope. Kelly will push onward, according to yesterday's Anchorage Daily News:
State Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, said he'll be using the election results to try to win support for the amendment. Voters in his district opposed the measure by a slight majority, but he said that doesn't change his view.Hmmm. Again, let us review. Advisory vote = Advice to Legislator. Therefore, if Advisory Vote = No, Advice to Legislator = No. What part of this does Kelly not understand?
"I am not one of the legislators that necessarily needed the advisory vote to tell me where I stand on the issue," Kelly said. "I am still where I've been all along."
I'll tell you what, if District 7 had gone to the 'yes' vote by even one percent, he'd be claiming a mandate. Whoever runs against him next time ought to have a field day with this. I know I'll be volunteering for the campaign of whoever tries to unseat him.
3 comments:
Oh, BARF! Coghill even ADMITS it! private employers would ALSO be affected by his amendment!
"Coghill says his measure would, as written, bar even private employers from providing benefits to partners of gay and lesbian employees. But he said there's room to negotiate that."
So why does Coghill think it is unacceptable for the state to force private business to treat unconventional couples equally with regard to employment benefits, but acceptable to force private businesses to discriminate against them, even if they WANT to provide extra benefits? How is THAT fair to businesses? There's a disconnect here.
Turnout in Ester was 36.92% (second in the district--Goldstream #2 tromped our butts with 38.16%). Overall District 8 had 27.63% turnout (PDF), with the vote tally 1443 to 2266, nays taking it.
I'm thinking Coghill thinks he can do it because he is a religious zealot with a whole pack of religious zealot constitutents. I mean, we're talking about North Pole here.
Funny, two things spring to mind when you talk about North Pole: extreme fundamentalist Christians and meth labs.
And, go Ester! If I ever move out of the GSV, that's where I'm heading. (Are the property values any lower? Gads, the price of a lot out here is crazy.)
Dunno, but the property values out here seem pretty steep. Especially after the last tax bill...outrageous jumps in land values, not to mention buildings.
My pseudo-uncle is good friends with Coghill (they agree to disagree on certain issues), and he's apparently a fine fellow in many respects. I've heard good things about his honesty in the legislature. However, I see his view on this as a dodge--it's not about the fiscal/fairness situation, quite obviously. It's all about "tab A and slot B", to quote a friend of mine. He's fooling himself if he believes his views on homosexuality have nothing to do with his motivations for forcing the state and the private sector to deny benefits to unconventional couples.
Post a Comment