Isn't it ironic?

[owlmoose]

Two cases of unintended consequences:

1. Article on the evils of the Internet and the necessity of filters in libraries... is blocked by a library's Internet filter.


2. Constitutional amendment to block same-sex marriage might end all marriage in California, because ...the amendment would undo only part of the court's decision -- allowing gay couples to marry -- but not the rest, which says that same-sex couples cannot be recognized differently than opposite-sex couples [according to constitutional law expert David B. Cruz]. The implication is clear: if same-sex couples can't marry, then neither can anyone else. A similar issue was raised before, when Texans voted for an anti-marriage amendment with overly broad language, but the "all marriage is now illegal" interpretation did require a reading of the law that courts were unlikely to uphold. I think the case made here is much stronger. Would the CA Supremes agree? Who knows. But here's hoping we don't get the chance to find out.

Comments

[auronlu.livejournal.com]

I suppose if people accidentally voted to ban all marriage, they wouldn't then realize the inherent unfairness... would they. Ah well.

[owlmoose.livejournal.com]

Some might get it; some might not. Although I suppose the people who are likely to make that leap are also not likely to vote for the amendment.

Poll trends are encouraging; let's hold to that for now. And send money.