Check out the Dennis Schmidt for Senate Website today, because it might be gone tomorrow

GO check out the Dennis Schmidt for Senate Website today, since it could be gone tomorrow if he loses the primary.

Dennis who has been a suprising challenger for JP Duniphan in the senate race has come on like a hard charger and is posting a very serious challenge. This race is looked at as a possible sleeper upset for Duniphan, one of the founding members of the Mainstream Coalition.

Although the website seems to be devoid of any issue oriented critique that has driven this campaign. For instance, He's been hitting her on her vote for 2005's HJR 1001, the definition of marriage act. And in her advertising in response, Duniphan claims the truth is that she voted for the defense of marriage bill. (the truth is she was a big no vote on 1001)

Anyway, check it out before you miss your chance.


Anonymous said…
HJR 1001 is not the defense of marriage act. It is a resolution, which does not carry the weight of law. A resolution does not do anything. JP did vote for the defense of marriage bill, and anybody's vote on any resolution - yes or no - is an entirely empty gesture. Schmidt is a shameless demagogue, who deserves to lose.
Anonymous said…
Anon, you don't know what your talking about. It didn't do anything except place it on the ballot for the people to vote on.

If JP voted against gay marriage, what's the citation?

Sounds to me like you're trying to muddy the water when the issue is crystal clear.
Anonymous said…
JP voted for the law South Dakota currently has on the books defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Look it up yourself and get your facts straight before you distort her record.

But she's not an activist who goes around trying to change the constitution all the time.
Anonymous said…
The statute is: 25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization.

The part about "between a man and a woman" was added in 1996; a cursory google could tell you that. The LRC's past sessions only go back to 1997, but J.P. was there in 1996 and I don't see any reason why she would lie about her vote. If you refuse to take her word, I'm sure you can call the LRC (605.773.3251) and they could get you an answer pretty quickly.
PP said…
Anon and MJB, if I could chime in:

it would seem that it's possible that JP might have voted for the measure when she was in the house, but she did vote against placing it on the ballot last year at the pinnacle of the Mainstream movement.

If I was campaigning against her (which I am not) I'd call it more of a flip flop than an outright position statement one way or the other.
Anonymous said…
It's only a flip flop if you don't see the huge distinction between the state DOMA law and an amendment to our constitution that bans the recognition of same sex marriage, domestic partnerships and 'quasi-marrital' relationships (those last two apply to everyone, gay or straight).

Obviously, there are many people who didn't pay much attention during high school civics and would probably have a tough time seeing the difference; politicians love to take advantage of that kind of ignorance.
Unknown said…
Under "Relevant Issues", Schmidt lists the first issue as being "protecting personal rites".

Hmmmmm. Can that mean....?
Anonymous said…
K has it exactly right, but I would like to add something.

With the definition of marriage only in law, our state Supreme Court can rule it unconstitutional by having only 3 activist judges voting to ban it.

However, if it is in our State Constitution than our Sup Court cannot ban it as unconstitutional.

A Federal Court can still do that, and in some instances have, including Nebraska's which had passed with 71% of the votes. That's why we need the Fed. Am. too.
Anonymous said…
notla - there haven't been 3 activist judges in the history of this state. You are throwing out more scare tactics that have nothing to do with reality. This is a typical wedge issue brought to us by the conservatives to distract us from their real policies that are abject failures.
Anonymous said…
Hummmm. No big deal, but did Dennis mean personal "rights," rather than personal "rites?"
Anonymous said…
When I went to vote this morning I discovered the boundries had changed and I was now in Dist. 33...I felt dirty....then I saw I could vote for Dennis Schmidt and that made my day!
Anonymous said…
J. P. is no more...

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.