Julie's Journal

Yes, I did indeed vote. I was a bit amazed by how utterly difficult it was. We vote here by shading in the appropriate circle across from the candidates’ names and then taking our paper to the vote-collector-person – but it was a bit confusing which circle went with which name. And the lady gave me no instructions, which left me entirely confused, so I asked. And she proceeded to tell me how to vote straight-ticket. I wish I remembered it perfectly, because I’m pretty sure she told me that you just fill in the circle for “Republican” (which she indicated) or “Democrat” (also indicated). Maybe I misunderstood her. But it wasn’t very good instructions, at any rate, and they really need to get the circles closer to the candidates’ names. I think they had way too many third-party people on there, too – I didn’t count, but it seemed to be something really excessive, like six. Peroutka, Badnarik, Nader… others I hadn’t heard of. And I’m glad I wasn’t doing a write-in, because that would’ve been really confusing – I’m not sure where you were supposed to write the name! There was no clear blank, just a word “write-in” and then a circle next to it to fill in.

So that was my first voting experience.

I thought I came to the polls somewhat prepared, having researched the US candidates (senators and representatives) and the local fellow (state representative, I think?) and decided who to vote for. Come to find out, we were also supposed to vote on school board appointments, circuit judges, some office having to do with soil management (that was particularly bewildering), and other things I’d never heard of. Along with a constitutional amendment.

Not sure how I missed the fact that Kentucky was one of the eleven states voting on gay marriage.

I voted for it, but I’m writing about it because it made me think. I’ve thought a lot about the concept of an amendment to the US Constitution, and while I definitely think that a definition of marriage is absolutely immoral if it includes anything other than one man and one woman, I’m not sure that such a thing ought to be the province of the federal government. I tend to think that the purpose of the federal government should be somewhat limited to enforcing the Constitution in all its lands and to national defense (also – I find Bush’s apparent idea that another purpose of federal government is to promote freedom elsewhere to be rather interesting). Anyway, I’m not entirely convinced about the idea of a federal constitutional amendment. But the idea of a state constitutional amendment was much easier to decide, because, well, that’s sorta what the state was invented for: to promote order. And promoting order includes declaring certain actions to be “crime,” and defining “crime” requires that one have some sort of moral base. In absolute monarchy, that moral base is determined by the monarch, and in democracy, it’s determined by the people. And I’m one of the people, so I guess I’m part of the moral base. I think gay marriage is wrong, so I voted to ban it. If the votes continue their current trend, then it shall be banned.