Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Dept. of Unintended Consequences


I would love to see the reaction against the religious right if this actually became a consequence of their actions.

Posted by Tiffany | June 9, 2008 11:07 AM

When douchebags write initiatives....

Posted by Fnarf | June 9, 2008 11:09 AM

Seems like a fair solution.

Posted by flamingbanjo | June 9, 2008 11:15 AM

Watch full free porn movies on ... IT'S ALL FREE

Posted by FullFreeXXXMovies | June 9, 2008 11:15 AM

The purpose of this initiative is to motivate social conservatives to show up at the polls in November, where they might not have otherwise bothered to turn out for John McCain.

The initiative is unlikely to pass statewide, and John McCain is unlikely to carry California even with the initiative on the ballot, but there are down-ticket social conservative candidates in Coalinga and Visalia who will benefit from the presence of this initiative.

Posted by Rain Monkey | June 9, 2008 11:17 AM

News for Dan Savages war: see his Oct. 2002 article calling for war.

Newsweek: Soldiers Turning To Self-Harm To Avoid Going Back To Iraq

Army suicides rose last year, Pentagon says
115 troops killed themselves in 2007, the most since at least 1980

Posted by Jingo Dan | June 9, 2008 11:19 AM

Having been married once, it's completely beyond me why anyone in their right mind would want to get married anyway - straight or gay. It's a lose-lose situation.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | June 9, 2008 11:23 AM

I say we'll have no more marriages. Those that are married already, all but one, shall live; the rest shall keep as they are.

Posted by Hamlet | June 9, 2008 11:24 AM

Spammers and trolls! What's happening to slog?

Posted by Ziggity | June 9, 2008 11:25 AM

A full-stop end to government marriage in CA would be the best possible outcome. It's time to end government discrimination on the basis of relationship status. Here's hoping that's how it plays out.

Posted by David Wright | June 9, 2008 11:26 AM

The trolls are always there. The spammers are new, though.

Posted by Abby | June 9, 2008 11:26 AM

i've been calling for an end to civil marriage since this DOMA crap started. keep it religious.

Posted by max solomon | June 9, 2008 11:32 AM

When exactly in this country did it become acceptable to put granting a citizen his/her civil rights up to a public vote?

Posted by Bauhaus | June 9, 2008 11:38 AM

Hmm, I think this was an intended consequence--by the courts. Since they knew that there was a ballot initiative that could be on the November ballot, but couldn't explicitly block the initiative without a case presented to them, they sought to preempt the initiative by creating this as a consequence.

also, @5, although mobilizing voters for John McCain might be a result of this initiative, it was not an intended one. The initiative backers tried to get the initiative up on the recent June 3rd ballot, thinking that it would benefit from low turnout, which usually favors Republicans. They didn't gather enough signatures though, so had to wait for the upcoming November election.

Posted by Cook | June 9, 2008 11:43 AM

Loves it. Send me a sign for my yard immediately!

Posted by dawicksta | June 9, 2008 11:45 AM

"When exactly in this country did it become acceptable to put granting a citizen his/her civil rights up to a public vote?"

Not to mention Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, etc . . .

Posted by shub-negrorath | June 9, 2008 12:04 PM

Maybe instead of granting I should have said denying a citizen his/her civil rights. When (constitutionally) did it become acceptable to deny any group its civil rights by public vote?

May I introduce a proposition with enough signatures on it that proposes, "No Jew may use the library on Thursday?"

Or how about, "Native Americans may not purchase alcohol outside their reservations?"

Does the 14th protect shit like that, too?

Posted by Bauhaus | June 9, 2008 12:30 PM

@12 - Yes, exactly! There are absolutely zero non-religious arguments that can be made for keeping marriage a heterosexual institution, and of course purely religious arguments cannot be the basis of secular law. Let the religious folks have their religious ritual, and stop bothering the rest of us.

Posted by Hernandez | June 9, 2008 12:31 PM

Essentially, it gets at the issue the court decision didn't address.

The only alternative the court had to allowing same-sex marriage would be to have struck down the equal protection law as unconstitutionally vague. In the end, if any state says people have equal rights and equal protection under the law regardless of sexual orientation, they are compelled to define what sexual orientation is.

Sexual orientation implies that there is some chunk of the spectrum of gender on which lies the sort of person you are attracted to, fall in love with, and want to be married to. Even using the term "sexual orientation" itself implies the tacit assumption that hetero and homo are simply different "orientations" people have. If you have equal rights "regardless of sexual orientation" then you really do have to treat hetero and homo marriages the same.

Perhaps the constitutional amendment crowd would do better to petition the legislature to re-word the equal protection law. If "what they really meant was" whatever one might do in the bedroom, equal rights and protections apply to an individual, then such a clarification of the law would nullify the court decision.

Posted by Mr. Joshua | June 9, 2008 1:34 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.