Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Saying What the Amendment Actually Does

The San Jose Mercury News reports that:
As it now stands, California’s November ballot will introduce Proposition 8 with these words: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” On Tuesday, proponents of the proposition went to court to change that “inflammatory” language, saying it will unfairly influence voters to reject the measure.

Author and blogger John Scalzi responds with:
Well, you know. When the result of your proposed constitutional amendment is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, a right which they currently enjoy, it doesn’t get much more accurate than to describe it doing just that. Personally, I would have labeled it “The Marriage Nullification Amendment,” since that’s precisely what the amendment will do to thousands of entirely legal marriages in California, but I suspect the folks backing this proposition would like that even less.

Watch Scalzi lay the keen & well-written smack down at No Fair! You’re Saying What the Amendment Does!.

17 comments:

IT said...

Exactly. Make them own their bias.

It's like what they did in the midwest states. "Oh, no, this isn't going to take away health benefits or domestic violence protection or ANYTHING like that" while their noses grow bigger and bigger and they slash and burn.

It's about hatred and vituperation.

Lois Keen said...

Brilliant! Bravo Scalzi. Viva Scalzi.

seithman said...

From the article:

"The title ought to be 'Marriage,' or 'Rules Regarding Marriage,' - something that is clearly neutral in its language," Quinn said.

Yep, those choices would be clearly neutral, not to mention entirely too vague to offer any real meaning.

But then, I suppose that's what many Proposition 8 supporters want, eh?

James said...

According to the Advocate e-mail update, PGE just gave 250k to the keep same-gender marriage legal. Article is here

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid58542.asp

Padre Mickey said...

Good for Jerry Brown! He actually changed the language in the ballot. I actually voted for him for president many years ago.
And as a native Californian (living in Central America), I will be voting against Proposition 8. It's about time we had honest language in our ballots. I believe that the Republican Reign of Terror is about to end, and I may actually be able to return to the land of my birth.

Scott Hankins said...

I love clear language.

And kudoes to PG&E, too!

dr.primrose said...

Pacific Gas & Electric has donated $250,000 to defeat Prop. 8 -- PG&E backs gay marriage rights:

"Pacific Gas and Electric Co., California's largest investor-owned utility, has contributed $250,000 to defeat a ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, it was announced Tuesday."

...

"PG&E's contribution is the largest corporate and only utility donation received by the No on 8 campaign."

PseudoPiskie said...

I wonder if the antis are wondering how to boycott a utility company.

JCF said...

...without turning off their ACs. ;-/

Jim said...

So, they are suing because the ballot is truthful? Now there is a new twist!

Of course, these are the same people who keep wanting to call enacting their bias, "defense of marriage."

;;sigh;;


FWIW
jimB

David |Däˈvēd| said...

I think that Señor Brown is making an end run around the Cal Supremes dismisal of the suit to set aside the ballot proposal.

One of the points in the dismissed suit was that the original statement used to gather signatures to qualify the ballot proposal was that the constitutional change would not effect any existing marriages. This is no longer true.

(Did I just use an Estadounidense Football metaphor?)

IT said...

No, it still doesn't say anything about existing marriages, Dahveed. It says "eliminates the right to marry" not "eliminate marriages". Now, it is clear that if it passes, then the bigots will file suit to nullify my marriage. BUT it is not clear that that suit will work.

Which is why we are scrambling to marry before November.

of course the best think is to block the stupid Prop8 altogether. Instead of wedding gifts we are asking people to donate to the "No on 8" campaign at Equality for all.

David |Däˈvēd| said...

Let me try again.

One of the points in the dismissed suit was that the original statement used to gather signatures to qualify the ballot proposal was that the constitutional change would "make no change in the marriage laws and would have no fiscal impact." This is no longer true.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I see, Yup. Of course as Dr Primrose pointed out, the supremes didn't really address the lawsuit or rule on it one way or the other, but put it aside....for now.

I have yet to ahve anyone opposed explain how my marriage will in any way negatively influence them.

IT

David said...

I have yet to ahve anyone opposed explain how my marriage will in any way negatively influence them.

IT,

Sad to say, I gather that the anti-LGBT crowd is "negatively influenced" by the fact that you exist at all.

(Yet another reason I was so inspired by Kelvin Holdsworth's blog entry above. How can one say that there can be reasonable debate, and two sides to an issue, when one "side" is about the utter negation of fellow human beings ?)

JCF said...

Another Field Poll shows Prop8 LOSING! :-D

I.T. said...

We can't get cocky. The opposition considers this the Armageddon of the culture war and we are a long way from over.