Question about ballot initiatives - can the GBLT community and their

[BR_Parkway]

supporters put a ballot initiative in that declares divorce null and void in your state if some type of anti gay measure is enacted?

I started thinking about this when one of the news stories mentioned that a particular fight only had to certify something like 68,000 signatures to put something on the ballot in that state. We've all had conversations on DU and elsewhere about if they really wanted to 'protect' marraige, they'd outlaw divorce.

We know that none of the elected are going to have the cojones to propose something like this, the campaign fodder would be too easily turned against them.

But what if we could tack it on from a citizens initiative. Force the debate, and the parties involved, to defend allowing divorces while the battle to 'protect' marraige. And in some cases, force some groups to openly advocate for ending divorce, which will certainly turn a large number of voters against those groups' opinions.

Using their 'culture war' crap against them - why should we keep allowing them to set the timetables?

[tjwmason]

1. Doubt it would do anything.

I'd guess that they'd just ignore the divorce measure (knowing that it would have no chance of passing), and still drag folk out for the measure opposing gay-marriage.

[megatherium]

2. Most foes of the GLBT community are Christians who accept divorce

(with the notable exception of the Roman Catholics). But odd how Jesus never addressed homosexuality, but he did oppose divorce in unambiguous terms.

A local conservative Episcopal church sponsored a debate on ordination of gay people a year or two ago (in the wake of the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson). Afterwards I approached one of the participants, a theologian representing the conservative side of the debate, and asked him why Episcopalians accept divorce, contrary to the direct teaching of Christ, but not gay people. He did not have a good answer to that.

[Ian David]

3. They're planning this in Texas

The same group that banned gay marriage there plans to also ban divorce now.

[Ian David]

4. Here's a ballot initiative we should get behind...

Financial transparency for religious mega-groups:

Bill requiring financial transparency from religious mega-groups fails
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x7678

Mass. to vote on law requiring financial transparency 4 houses of worship
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x7533

We get to go door-to-door talking to people about the need to know how much money the Catholic church is spending to cover-up child molestations.

We also get to talk about our interest in making sure churches aren't violating their non-profit status while mentioning how the Catholic Church threatened to withhold communion to politicians and the people who voted for them if they took the wrong side on an issue.

It will dredge-up all the old stereotypes of Papists who pledge their allegiance first to a foreign power in Rome before their fellow Americans. We'll be talking about a vast Catholic conspiracy to cover-up pedophilia. We could almost just copy quotes from the KKK website.

And it won't just be about the Catholics. It will be about corruption in all the churches. We'll get to spend four years talking non-stop about every misdeed and every scandal in every church in the country.

And all because politicians in Massachusetts caved-in to lobbyists from the church against the will of the people.

They should have just passed the bill.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. No, that is not how the initiative works

It would be possible (in Washington, at least) to outlaw divorce by initiative, but you can not make the passage or repeal of any law conditional. Either it is the law, or it is not.

But just wait. If the Washington Supreme Court rules against equal marriage, it will have to be on the grounds of "marriage exists to create a family", which is the only argument given by equal marriage opponents in open court. If the Court so rules, there is an initiative already prepared and ready to be submitted that will make marriage exactly that: failure to procreate will automatically annul your marriage, and no out of state marriage may be recognized unless the married couple have procreated.

:evilgrin:

[BR_Parkway]

7. Good for them, any word when the Court will rule? I know it's been

a while coming.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander has stated...

That the ruling will be handed down before the end of the current Legislative session on March 9. That strongly implies that the Court has already decided to punt to the lawmakers rather than actually do their constitutionally mandated duty. That, in turn, strongly implies that the decision will be to create a separate but allegedly equal "civil union" which will have no access to more than a century of state court precedents regarding marriage.

I can guarantee that if that happens, all Washington voters will be extremely pissed at the Court, and there will be a concerted effort by both sides of the issue to oust the judges (in Washington, Supreme Court judges are elected, not appointed.) There will also be a great deal of pressure on Governor Gregoire to reconvene the Legislature and make them pass the mandated laws before the primary elections in September, as everyone will want to know just where their representatives in Olympia stand on the matter. The governor can force the legislature back in to session, but with it being an election year, there will be a lot of opposition from the lawmakers: while the Legislature is meeting, they are prohibited by state law from collecting any kind of campaign contributions.

What I expect will happen: On the day after the deadline to submit new bills for consideration, the Court will issue a ruling that mandates the Legislature either amend the marriage laws or create a parallel "civil union" that will be exclusive to same sex couples. The Legislature will adjourn without being able to deal with the Court's mandate. The Governor will refuse to convene a special session to get this mandate cleared before the elections. There will be a very bloody judicial battle with ideologues of every stripe working to oust the members of the Court; at least half of those up for reelection will be tossed out of office. In 2007, the Legislature will come up with a set of "compromises" that heavily favor the bigots and which barely squeek past the spirit of the Court's ruling. All voters around the state will be mightily peeved and vow to throw the bums out. Come the 2008 elections, no one will remember this "ancient history" and those who do will be focusing on the District of Columbia and not Olympia, and the Legislature will (as always) be overwhelmingly reelected.

Who, me? Cynical? What do you mean?

[davidinalameda]

6. in California, you can pretty much get anything on the ballot

if you get enough signatures

I'd love to see something like this go forward-the free publicity from the media would be priceless

[sui generis]

9. I see the grand idea here -

If you outlaw divorce on the ballot and they people who CAN get married shoot it down, then they are clearly NOT interested in preserving marriage and the fundamental unit of society, etc.

However, no sound logic would ever deter a bigot from voting to make us miserable. They do it just because they can.

Coming back through customs together in Canada yesterday, for the first time ever the Customs (U.S.) agent told Other Mr. Sui to "get back in line! You can only come forward together if you're married!".

So while the fuckwad was looking over my papers I told him we were married illegally, paid bills, shared property, and had a family together and there wasn't a goddamn thing the U.S. could do about it. He stopped, tried to glare me down for a full 20 seconds, slapped my papers together and waved me through.

He was just happy as a pig in shit to enforce this shit and spew out his reason, because he saw a couple of fags in line he though he could get away with.

One of these days, I'm goin' to jail for my mouth.