One toke over the line, sweet Jesus

By Richard K. Barry

Sure, some guy named Barack Obama was re-elected president last week, but the really good news was further down the ballot:

A record 48 percent of Americans support legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use, just one week after three states voted to legalize the drug under some conditions — including Colorado and Washington's historic votes to allow the personal use and sale of pot.

It's complicated, and I don't want to get into too much detail. Suffice it to say that those who partake in these states have something to cheer about. There are, however, some naysayers:

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who opposed legalization, was less enthused. "Federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don't break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly," he said.

Heh, heh. Cheetos, Goldfish. Good one.

Anyway, this all put me in mind of a song, suggested to me by a friend familiar with the ballot initiatives in these states. You may recall the Brewer and Shipley tune from 1970, "One Toke Over the Line." Unlike some songs like "Puff the Magic Dragon" or "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" that people suggest might be about drugs, "One Toke Over the Line" is about drugs. No doubt about it.

The best fun fact I found is that it was once featured on The Lawrence Welk Show by a couple of cast members, after which Lawrence applauded the pair's singing of this "modern spiritual." For those who don't know, one line in the song is "One toke over the line, sweet Jesus." Guess that was enough for Larry.

So here's the original, which is a really nice folky thing, followed by the version on Lawrence Welk, which is too funny. You'll note in the intro by Brewer and Shipley they actually refer to the Welk version. 



(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Credit where credit is due in the fight for marriage equality

By Mustang Bobby

Dan Savage on why marriage equality won:

I know so many straight people in Seattle who worked unbelievably hard to approve R-74. They gave money, they volunteered their time, they reached out to friends and relatives and coworkers, all in an effort to make it possible for same-sex couples to marry. Gays and lesbians are a tiny percentage of the population. We couldn't do this on our own. A majority of the legislators who voted for same-sex marriage? Straight. The governor who signed the law making same-sex marriage legal in Washington state? Straight. The majority of the folks manning the phone banks for R-74? Straight. The overwhelming majority of people who voted to approve R-74? Straight. The president who took a huge political risk and came out for marriage equality before his reelection campaign? Straight. It has gotten better for us -- better, not perfect -- but it hasn't gotten better for us in a vacuum. It's gotten better for us because straight people have gotten better about us.

This is the heart of the matter, and although it's a bumper-sticker sentiment, it's true: gay rights are human rights. If we don't have them, then it harms everyone. Equality is not an Us vs. Them proposition, nor is it a zero-sum game. Me having the right to marry the one I love (as soon as I find him) or adopt a child in Florida, or get survivor and inheritance benefits from Social Security, or any of the other 1,100 things that are available to heterosexual couples only via that one little word -- "married" -- does not take something away from that nice straight couple next door with their kids.

Personally I have never doubted that there are straight people who support not just marriage equality but the quality of life that living without fear of discrimination brings to our society. Starting with my family and friends -- even the evangelical ones who hear their pastors rail against us on a weekly basis -- I have never doubted that they supported me as a person and shared my joys and sorrows when I was in a committed relationship. That was because they knew me and Allen and came to our house and invited us to theirs. Now it is becoming apparent that they and lots of other people are beginning to see it in the abstract; that marriage equality isn't just about your friends and neighbors but about removing the uncertainties from everyday life that marriage recognized in law and custom brings.

Stability and peace is all we seek, and it is heartening and, at the risk of sounding churlish, about damn time that it happened.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Four-for-four on marriage equality

By Mustang Bobby

In case you missed it, the final vote count is in from Washington state, and marriage equality won:

Washington voters have narrowly approved same-sex marriage, completing a four-state sweep of victories on Election Day by marriage-equality advocates. Before Tuesday, gay marriage had never won a statewide vote anywhere in America.

On Thursday, opponents conceded.

"With additional results showing that we have not closed the gap, it now appears clear that Referendum 74 will be narrowly approved," Joseph Backholm, head of Preserve Marriage Washington, said in a statement. "We are disappointed in losing a tough election battle on marriage by a narrow margin. But while we are disappointed, we are not defeated."

Bolstered by getting two-thirds of the vote in populous King County, Ref. 74 held a 96,000 vote lead as of mid-afternoon Thursday. It was capturing 51.96 percent of the vote, to 48.04 percent opposed.

Zach Silk, campaign manager for the pro-R-74 group Washington United for Marriage, called Thursday a "historic day" for the state, nation and "for families across the state of have dreamed of this day."

So that makes it Maine, Maryland, and Washington that actually voted to approve marriage equality, while Minnesota defeated a measure to ban it from their state constitution.

The tide, as they say, is turning. Up to now, marriage equality has never won in a referendum; in fact, Maine voters rescinded the state law passed by the legislature in 2009, and the anti-equality folks never let us hear the end of it. Their line was that neither the state or the courts had the right to "impose" it on the people (no, I'm not going for the "shove it down our throats" metaphor), and if the voters had the choice, they would defeat it. Well, to quote Mona Lisa Vito, I guess that point is moot.

I am waiting to see if one of the losing factions goes to court to try to overturn the election, thus completing the cycle of surrealism.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)