For a roundup of state questions on the upcoming Oklahoma Ballot, I point you towards OCPA’s Synopsis of the State Ballot Questions. A supposedly non-partisan view of the questions. I’m fairly convinced that the phrase “non-partisan” doesn’t have meaning, but this site seems pretty even handed with regard to the questions.
I leave it to you to click on the link above (a new window will popup) and then see below how I plan to vote and why.
- SQ 705: Oklahoma Education Lottery
- Voting no on this one. While I don’t have a problem with gambling per se, I don’t think the state should be promoting it.
- SQ 706: Oklahoma Education Lottery Trust Fund
- I really don’t know. Of course, Baby Jesus and the bunnies want me to vote for increased funding for education, I’m not sure why these monies shouldn’t go to the general fund for use as the legislature sees fit. All things considered, I’ll probably vote yes for this one. Just not sure it is a well-reasoned vote on my part.
- SQ 707: Municipalities and Prospective Debt
- From what I have read from an anti-707 essay (long since lost), this is basically allows cities and municipalities to assume the long-term debt of businesses that they have lured into the state with sweet deals. If the business decides to move out, the city is left holding the long-term debt of the sweet deal. Pro-707 folks have their own site. I note that a no vote does not disable TIFs, but merely maintains them in their current, cumbersome state. Undecided on this one still.
- SQ 708: Tapping the Rainy Day Fund
- Shall we allow the state legislature to dip into the rain-day fund to the tune of 1/2 the amount available or 3/8? Window dressing, in my way of thinking. I’m all for keeping a small rainy-day fund, but isn’t doesn’t this money really belong to the citizens of Oklahoma? Shouldn’t they be earning the interest on this money? Oh wait. It’s those greedy bazillionaire capitalists that save money. Not us poor peasants. Probably vote yes for this one, if only because some legislator in the capital will scowl in pain.
- SQ 711: Definition of Marriage
- Shall marriage be between a single (human) male and a single (human) female? Jeez, folks. What have we resorted to here? Because some judicial activists back east have decided that gays need affirmation from the state in order to feel good about themselves, they have over-ridden civil unions. The backlash to this is the current state question — and many more like it across the country.
If the pro-gay lobby was seeking to suppress the social conservative vote this election, I’ve got news for them. This was not the way to do it.
As for me? I’m not sure. I think marriage has (traditionally) been for the children, not the adults. Raising kids is hard enough with two parents. Marriage was a way to encourage the male (who would really like to ensure more copies of himself running around) so stick around with the female (who really has to invest a lot of time and energy into raising a child). The adults are really the the start of the equation, not the end. And no, this doesn’t mean that childless marriages are illegitimate. I’m speaking of original purposes.
Let us assume that this question does not pass. What is next? And please don’t tell me that this is a straw man proposal. You can’t tell me that once gay marriages is allowed, others will not start lobbying and declaiming discrimination. If we allow gay marriages, why shouldn’t we allow polygamy? Polyandry?
I’m not sure the state should be blessing what is (basically) inserting tab A into slot B.
How will I vote? I’m not sure I have a strong enough opinion on this one to vote one way or the other. I would have supported an amendment allowing civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities given to marriage. I’m just not sure we should call it marriage.
- SQ 712: State-Tribal Gaming Act
- I have no problem with allowing increased gaming at racetracks and casinos. The state receives a portion of the money and doesn’t promote the activity. This is a yes vote for me.
- SQ 713: Tobacco Tax Increase
- Set taxes on cigarettes at 4 cents per and have all the money go to the state, thereby depriving communities of funding? Perhaps set the taxes on cigarettes in Oklahoma so high that we encourage bootlegging? Create a regressive tax while cutting the top income tax rates? No.
- SQ 714: Freezing the Value of Seniors Property
- Freeze the property taxes for Seniors who are (basically) quite poor. Probably a good idea. I’ll vote yes for this.
- SQ 715: Property Tax Exemption for Totally Disabled Veterans
- To those who proclaim: I support our troops. Put up or shut up. Emphatic yes. Not sure it should be a 100% disability, but it’s a good start.
[Via BatesLine]