Monday, October 09, 2006

...and yet another reason NOT to read the ArgusLeader

I totally missed this last week as I'm no longer getting my news from the local paper. Really, I'm so annoyed at the paper already that I could just spit - and so are a lot of folks around here, including journalists. I have had to deal with worse local papers, it's true (I've also had better ones). But now I'm really mad:

Vote for Amendment C, Initiated Measure 2
PUBLISHED: October 3, 2006
Vote "yes" on Constitutional Amendment C, the marriage amendment.

Two arguments most often are cited as reasons for opposing this:

We already have a law defining marriage as between a man and woman, so we don't need an amendment. But this amendment would protect that law from court challenges. It also would protect South Dakota from being forced to recognize marriages approved elsewhere.

It would ban legal recognition of relationships (outside of marriage) between men and women. That, already, is an iffy proposition in South Dakota, because we don't recognize common-law marriage. There would be no impact.

In fact, there would be little impact on anyone, while protecting our law and the beliefs of most South Dakotans.


What's frustrating is that, once again (all together now) we expect our newspaper reporters and editors to DO THEIR HOMEWORK. The reason Amendment C is a bad idea is because it is paving the way to allow legal discrimination against anyone who is not legally married.

And for the ArgusLeader to omit this information in its endorsement, to fail to rebut this argument, is inexcusable.

Here is one piece of information the ArgusLeader leaves out; click for a link to the whole paper and a more complete argument against Amendment C:

• ...an Ohio appellate court has found that the Ohio gay marriage amendment, that is similar to South Dakota's gay marriage amendment, was unconstitutional as applied to nonmarried heterosexual couples. Under the rulings, non-married Ohio heterosexual couples now have fewer protections under Ohio's domestic violence laws.

• Put another way, the Ohio appellate court has found that some provisions of its state's domestic abuse law provide rights that are "quasi-marital" in status, and thus, non-married heterosexual couples cannot use them.

• This remarkable and disturbing "The Ohio Experience" has allowed abusers to have charges dismissed against them or only have lesser charges brought against them.

...

• South Dakota's pending Amendment C and the Ohio gay marriage amendment share similar language, as do their domestic violence statutes.

• It is possible that a South Dakota judge may be forced to make similar findings under Amendment C if voters pass it this fall.

1 comment:

Jon Hoadley said...

In addition to not doing their homework, they repeatedly denied requests for representatives from South Dakotans Against Discrimination to meet with the editoral board.

Feel free to write letters to the editors about all of this!