Comments on: Dog Trainer To Correct Big Gay Error? http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:32:09 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Ehrenstein http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/comment-page-1/#comment-125089 David Ehrenstein Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:28:09 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/#comment-125089 Call Ted Haggard. I'm sure he can get you a discount on the "tina" and hustlers you crave. Call Ted Haggard. I’m sure he can get you a discount on the “tina” and hustlers you crave.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/comment-page-1/#comment-120897 Xrlq Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:06:31 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/#comment-120897 I've heard that argument before, but it's bogus. For one thing, do we really want to open that huge can of worms and start re-defining <i>every</i> successful ballot initiative to mean not what it says, but what one elected official said it meant - or worse, what one high-profile ad campaign said it meant - prior to the vote? For another, even if we did interpret initiatives that way, the argument would be revisionist in the extreme as applied here. The only ostensibly neutral statement appearing on the voter pamphlet is the <a href="http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22analysis.htm" rel="nofollow">Analysis by the Legislative Analyst,</a> which said zero/zip/nada about this initiative drawing any supposed distinction between in-state and out-of-state marriage. Further, Prop 22 opponents - the very same people who are now conveniently claiming Prop 22 only affects out of state marriages - drew no such distinctions in the <a href="http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22noarg.htm" rel="nofollow">argument against Prop 22,</a> or the <a href="http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22yesrbt.htm" rel="nofollow">rebuttal</a> to the argument in favor, and in fact made all sorts of doomsday predictions inconsistent with any such distinction. On the flip side, the <a href="http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22yesarg.htm" rel="nofollow">argument for</a> and the <a href="http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22norbt.htm" rel="nofollow">rebuttal to the argument against</a> the initiative both raise the potential loophole of Section 308 as one of several reasons why they believed Prop 22 was necessary - neither said anything to the effect that preventing recognition of out of state marriages was <i>all</i> Prop 22 would do. As to whether a gay marriage initiative would pass, I tend to think it would not. Surely Mark Leno agrees; else his bill would have repealed Prop 22 outright and gone for a popular vote, rather than attempting to dance around Prop 22 by "interpreting" it out of existence. I’ve heard that argument before, but it’s bogus. For one thing, do we really want to open that huge can of worms and start re-defining every successful ballot initiative to mean not what it says, but what one elected official said it meant – or worse, what one high-profile ad campaign said it meant – prior to the vote? For another, even if we did interpret initiatives that way, the argument would be revisionist in the extreme as applied here. The only ostensibly neutral statement appearing on the voter pamphlet is the Analysis by the Legislative Analyst, which said zero/zip/nada about this initiative drawing any supposed distinction between in-state and out-of-state marriage. Further, Prop 22 opponents – the very same people who are now conveniently claiming Prop 22 only affects out of state marriages – drew no such distinctions in the argument against Prop 22, or the rebuttal to the argument in favor, and in fact made all sorts of doomsday predictions inconsistent with any such distinction. On the flip side, the argument for and the rebuttal to the argument against the initiative both raise the potential loophole of Section 308 as one of several reasons why they believed Prop 22 was necessary – neither said anything to the effect that preventing recognition of out of state marriages was all Prop 22 would do.

As to whether a gay marriage initiative would pass, I tend to think it would not. Surely Mark Leno agrees; else his bill would have repealed Prop 22 outright and gone for a popular vote, rather than attempting to dance around Prop 22 by “interpreting” it out of existence.

]]> By: KG http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/comment-page-1/#comment-120628 KG Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:43:30 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/#comment-120628 I remember reading somewhere - might be a case, can't recall off the top of my head - that the voter info packs for prop 22 said that it would apply to marriages conducted outside of california because same-sex marriages weren't currently allowed in california. That is the basis for the reasoning. Personally, I'd rather they just put the whole thing to a vote again, gay marriage would probably pass. I remember reading somewhere – might be a case, can’t recall off the top of my head – that the voter info packs for prop 22 said that it would apply to marriages conducted outside of california because same-sex marriages weren’t currently allowed in california. That is the basis for the reasoning.

Personally, I’d rather they just put the whole thing to a vote again, gay marriage would probably pass.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/comment-page-1/#comment-120239 Xrlq Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:39:37 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/#comment-120239 You may be right, but if so, it's not going to work. By alerting me to the fact that the editors themselves are aware of the error, they've set me up to identify the next "error" as an outright lie rather than the mere journalistic malpractice I assume this one was. You may be right, but if so, it’s not going to work. By alerting me to the fact that the editors themselves are aware of the error, they’ve set me up to identify the next “error” as an outright lie rather than the mere journalistic malpractice I assume this one was.

]]> By: AndrewGurn http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/comment-page-1/#comment-120234 AndrewGurn Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:53:33 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/01/11/dog-trainer-to-correct-big-gay-error/#comment-120234 They only said that so you would shut up about it. Good try though. They only said that so you would shut up about it. Good try though.

]]>