Comment Policy

Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.

Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

California is Not Vermont, Nor Iowa

Posted by The Playful Walrus
The Associated Press is trying to link the recent court decision in Iowa and legislature vote in Vermont to neutering marriage licensing in California in this article by Evelyn Nieves. Marriage neutering advocates are trying to claim that they have the momentum, and like a bunch of teenagers, California’s Supreme Court should bow to “peer” pressure. This, of course, ignores that a majority of states, like California have recently passed marriage protection amendments.

Yet again the AP uses the incorrect phraseology of "banning gay marriage" in this article.

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

[Neutered] marriage supporters are particularly interested in the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling, which they hope will sway the California Supreme Court to overturn the ballot measure voters passed with 52 percent of the vote in November. But opponents say the Iowa decision should have no bearing on the essential issue before the high court: Whether voters have the right to amend California's constitution at the polls.
Exactly. Iowa is a different state. The people of Iowa have not amended their state constitution. Of course, it shouldn't be necessary for them to do so in the fist place. It should be up to the people demanding a change to bring about a change in the laws in general or the state constitution.
California's Proposition 8, similar to laws in 29 other states that ban gay marriage, was the most expensive ballot measure in the nation, with $83 million poured into campaigns on either side. The measure was introduced largely as a reaction to the California Supreme Court's decision in May to legalize same-sex unions.
This is a falsehood – either a mistake or a blatant lie. The California Marriage Amendment was heading to the ballot before the court ruled to force neutered marriage licensing on the unwilling people of California.
That ruling was extensively cited by Iowa justices in their decision released Friday.
I still think it is ridiculous to cite an overturned decision from another state as a precedent.
Reactions: 
Labels: , , , , ,

2 comments,:

  1. Indeed, PW, Proposition 8 was officially approved for the ballot BEFORE the CA court issued its refusal to stay its pro-SSM order. About a million signatures had been gathered BEFORE the CA court voted on its pro-SSM opinion. The proposed amendment was written more than a decade ago -- it constitutionalized Proposition 22 which was approved long before the CA court accepted the marriage cases a couple of years ago.

    How quickly the pro-SSM side, and the biased newsmedia, attempt to rewrite recent history.

    This is endemic to identity politics. To a large extent, this sort of thing is definitive of identity politics throughout modern history, the gay version of identity politics being no exception.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Just goes to show, whatever it is they're selling to the judges -- the people just aren't buying it. So the judges quote each other, and the media misrepresents the truth, and everyone crosses their fingers and hopes the public doesn't choke on the bowl of BS they've just been spoonfed.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)