For all Florida voters...

[AirForceRocks]

...tell the truth....did you vote for or against the "Protection for Pregnant Pigs" amendment to the state constitution?

I voted for it....

 

[bsnyder]

AFR, you did not!! Please tell me you didn't vote for it! Please!!!!

And if you're not kidding me, then why, why, why?

 

[AirForceRocks]

I voted for it because I personally don't see it as such a big deal to allow pregnant pigs to roam about the field. Now granted, I'm no farmer, but is it really such a hardship to refrain from restraining a pregnant pig?

 

[bsnyder]

*shakes her head sadly*

But AFR, it's the principle of the matter.

Personally, I love pigs, but should we really be giving them constitutional protections?

 

[AirForceRocks]

I know what you mean bsnyder....I have to admit that I was ROTFLMAO for quite some time when I read my ballot!!

No, I don't think pigs deserve constitutional protection, and I don't think the measure will pass.

 

[nativetxn]

Protection for pregnant pigs???

 

[DocRafiki]

You don't think animals should be protected against cruelty? That is sad and barbaric.

I was against it when I thought the issue was in regards to a breeding pig petition that someone tried to have me sign last year. Then I was talking to my tech who was involved with getting the amendment on the ballot and found there is much more to it than what I thought.

 

[RoqueC]

Hey now, Pigs deserve as much protection as we do. After all, we eat enough of them.

 

[Talking Hands]

Ok I voted for it. I am not for cruelty to animals. My dd and dh voted against it.

 

[Galahad]

I voted againt almost all of the amemdments. Not because they are bad ideas but because they don't belong in a State's constitution.

 

[BarryHom]

I said what the hey, I vote yes.

I was more concerned about Admendment 6.

 

[Poohbear123]

Yes I did too! I LOVE Pregnant Pigs.

 

[disfanatiks]

I admit it...I voted for the pigs!!

 

[bsnyder]

Doc, absolutely animals should be protected from cruelty. But a constitutional amendement to do that sets a very bad precedent. JMO, of course.

Galahad, I always follow your rule and vote against them all. Except in this election, I voted yes for Amendment #2, which will require an estimated price tag on all future ballot initiatives. If we already had that, we wouldn't have passed the high speed rail initiative, and the class size amendment wouldn't stand a chance. I can't understand voting something into the constitution without having a clue as to how much it's going to cost!

 

[DocRafiki]

OK, I don't know anything about government and law. So, what is the big deal about having these as amendments? What is the alternative?

 

[kylara]

I voted against. I believe in protecting animals but not with a constitutional amendment.

 

[iluvorlando]

I voted against....why worry about pregnant pigs when we can't even take care of our pregnant women? No offense, Jen...This also doesnt need to be a constitutional amendment. Should be taken care of by the county.

 

[doxdogy]

Okay, I will admit that DH and I voted for it.

 

[lindamg]

I voted against the pig amendment also for the simple reason that it isn't an issue that should be remedied with a constitutional amendment.

I also voted against the smoking amendment. I don't smoke, but my fiancee does and he is restricted enough as it is. My brother manages a bowling alley. If this amendment passes he could quite possibly be out of a job due to the fall-off in bowlers. Think that's unlikely to happen? Talk to the bowling managers in California who ended up shutting down for 6 months or so until people adjusted and started coming back.

I also voted against the smaller class size amendment (yes, I'm a teacher). Sure smaller classes are great, but where are they going to put them? How are we going to pay for them? Where are the qualified teachers going to come from? And like the pigs, this has no place as a constitutional amendment, it should be a county school board decision.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by DocRafiki
OK, I don't know anything about government and law. So, what is the big deal about having these as amendments? What is the alternative?

Jen, the alternative is to use the legislative and regulatory bodies of the State to pass laws to restrict this. It can be done and maybe it should be!

And I think you sell yourself short when you say you don't know anything about government and laws. This is a fundamental "big picture" issue, and if one just thinks past the emotions of the cruelty to animals issue, it's clear that a constitutional amendment is not the appropriate way to deal with this issue.

That being said, I predict it will pass, by a small margin, and set a precedent for all sorts of wacky "protection"amendments to our state constitution.

***REAL TIME UPDATE***

With 63% of the votes counted, this amendment is passing 58.1% to 41.9%