Amend the California Constitution

So a bunch of Godly bigots want to change California's constitution in order to deny protected rights to a minority. In and of itself, that's stupid, but what's just as stupid is that the California Constitution can be amended by a simple majority - >50%. Therefore, there needs to be a concurrent ballot initiative to amend the California Constitution such that a 60% majority is needed to amend the California constitution, effective immediately.

Having been through several ballot initiatives at the state and local levels myself in several states and locales, I can tell you that the most common tactic to get these things rammed through the system (especially when opposition is running at only 35%, as the proposed CA initiative banning gay rights is) is simply to put it up for consideration over and over every election (especially in the off-peak elections, because of low turnout) until it gets passed. Raising the bar to 60% (or more) would definitely make that much more difficult to accomplish. And frankly, shouldn't it take more than a simple majority to do something as serious as amend the Constitution? It certainly does at the national level.

Get some signatures.

The Difference Between Clinton and Obama

Here's an interesting article on Clinton's female supporters in the wane of her candidacy. There's one paragraph in particular that really resonates with me, and for me distills the difference between her and Obama:

"Mrs. Clinton's campaign, many women say with regret, did not inspire a deep or nuanced conversation between men and women, only familiar gender-war battles consisting of male gibes and her supporters' angry responses. Mr. Obama, who sought to minimize the role of race in his candidacy, led something of a national dialogue about it, but Mrs. Clinton, who made womanhood an explicit part of her run, seemed unwilling or unable to talk candidly about gender."

That appears to be how they differ on every issue, not just on race/gender. Where Obama speaks sincerely in tones of dialogue and collaboration, Clinton has (even moreso recently) taken an "us and them" trench warfare attitude, apparently trying to pick up where Edwards's campaign left off. With the uneducated and the boomer-generation culture warriors, it's worked. With the educated and the youth who are the future of this country, it's felt hollow.

I respect him for that, and I don't respect her for the same reason, and it takes a lot for me to say that about a Democrat who's promised to raise capital gains taxes. Maybe I'll vote for him in November... at this point, it's either him or vote for no one. (As much as I believe in the Libertarian ideal, I can't vote for someone with Bob Barr's past.) But when I see Obama speak on CNN, be it in a canned speech, or in an interview, I can't help but think that that voice is the future this nation needs. My choice now is whether to take the bad with the good and actually give him my vote.

But I live in California, so it doesn't really matter anyway.