owlmoose: (Default)
KJ ([personal profile] owlmoose) wrote2008-06-10 07:28 pm

Isn't it ironic?

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.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org