I got my state voter's guide today. I don't know if your state publishes one of these things, but I can tell you that it is an amazing source of information and citizen empowerment. It's a pulp booklet, almost 150 pages this time. It covers each proposition on the ballot and when there are officials to be elected, it reviews them as well.
The pamphlet is divided into sections. For ballot initiatives, it first has a summary. Then, an analysis by a "Legislative analyst" including an estimate of how much it will cost the taxpayers. Next comes a statement in support of the proposition and a statement against the proposition. Below each statement is a rebuttal from the opposing group. In the back, for those so inclined, is a complete text of each proposition.
There are quite a few initiatives on the March 7, 2000 ballot here in California. During the coming weeks I'll try to discuss some of the ones that I think are particularly interesting to our geographically broad audience. Today I wanted to start with Prop 22, "Limit on Marriages."
The supporters tried to sneak this one onto the ballot as the "California Defense of Marriage Act." However, state law forbids misleading titles for ballot initiatives and since this 14-word law only provides for limits on the definition of marriage, it was re-titled by the Attorney General to "Limit on Marriages."
First, I must tell you that it is currently a law in the state of California that a "marriage" can only exist between one man and one woman. This law will not repeal that either way. There is also a federal law to that effect. This proposition cannot alter that federal law whether it passes or not. So, what the heck is the point? There really isn't one. The backers of this initiative aren't happy with something being only doubly-illegal. They want three laws preventing men from marrying men or women from marrying women. Can you believe that? The radical right-wingers like "Focus on the Family" are voting for additional layers of redundant and unnecessary legislation. Aren't they the ones who want the government out of our private lives? Yeah, I thought so too.
So let's review the two possible outcomes of Prop 22:
So it won't just be "really, really" illegal, it will be "really, really, really" illegal. Jeez, gimme a break. This is a law we just don't need. In fact, it is so STUPID it can only be intended as cover for something else. In other states like Virginia and Florida, similar laws have been used to deny same-sex hospital visitations and inheritance.
It's simple, when groups that normally oppose redundant and unnecessary laws do a flip-flop and support ridiculous TRIPLE coverage of the same restriction, there must be something else that they are up to. If you're eligible to vote in California, I urge you to vote against this wasteful and unneeded initiative.
Links: