Wednesday, August 27, 2008

PP is slow on the uptake

A couple weeks ago, PP over at South Dakota War College finally got around to reading Initiated Measure 10, and noticed the "domestic partner" language. Apparently (I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say) he hadn't read the full text of Measure 10 before his weeks of commenting on it.

Oh. My. Gosh.

As it parallels the language in an identical measure in Colorado, as the Rocky Mountain News reports, it sounds as if the wording of IM10 might possibly be the catalyst for South Dakota to recognize same-sex marriage via it’s inclusion of "domestic partnership" in the relationships it covers


The August 13 post, which was recently brought to my attention is now a bit buried in the archives, and so you don't have to wipe off your keyboard after visiting PP's site, here is my response to his fear and loathing:

Dear Pat,

Wow.

You seem AWFULLY slow on the uptake. We read this domestic partner language a long time ago. Because I like, read the thing before I decided not to support it.

(I wish more of you conservative Defenders of Liberty would read the scary language in IM11 too — DNA samples, etc… where are the black helicopters!!)

Duh.

And, DOH!, if pigs fly and IM10 passes, the “domestic Partner” language would would be immediately overruled by our State Constitution, which thanks to your side of the aisle now has this ugly discrimination written into it. That’s why you argued to add this icky amendment. Thank goodness the US Supreme Court will roll back all efforts in a half a generation with a laugh of how misled we were back at the turn of the century about GLBT people. In that future coming when the majority figures out they’ve been LIED to, that GLBT folk are not a scary threat but rather realize they are a treasured gift to our American society and culture. But I digress…

And I thought you conservatives were constitutional law experts. Oh, well it’s not the first time you were all just pulling it out of your collective butt.

2 comments:

  1. First, you're making a couple of assumptions.

    #1, that I hadn't read it (I had)

    And that #2, my article was exclusively keyed off of IM10. (It wasn't)

    My article was keyed off of the fact that this same measure could affect things in Colorado - and was just written about at the time.

    As well as the fact that the "Domestic Partnership" language is coming out of the SDCAC, a group that you wouldn't expect to recognize domestic partnerships.

    But obviously, none of that mattered as you hoped to just smash conservatives in general.

    ReplyDelete
  2. #1 The domestic partnership language was the first thing I noticed when I read it. Hard to believe you didn't comment at the time!

    #2 Uh huh. That's why IM10 was in the title.

    The reason it comes from SDCAC is because they are lazy and are more interested in making points than getting it right.

    And don't tell me that isn't typical of the right. That's why the Repubs are in trouble from coast to coast. If Repubs don't start being more reality-based, their good ideas will continue to be suspect.

    ReplyDelete