Saturday, October 14, 2006

Amendment C's "Unintended" Consequences Not So Unintended?

This came to me via an email from a local activist, but it comes originally from Todd Epp's site and from South Dakotans Against Discrimination's (SDAD) site.:

As SDAD has pointed out in previous releases and in presentations, other states have experienced "unintended" consequences after passage of these amendments. What the Fair Wisconsin report documents is that often times the groups that support the amendments and say they only wish to "protect" traditional marriage then work to put these "unintended" consequences into law and action.

For example:

Before: CCV (Citizens for Community Values) Leader Said Amendment Was Not Intended To Impact Domestic Violence Laws: CCV Leader Phil Burress sad the proposed amendment was not intended to change the state's domestic violence law. (Associated Press, 2/3/05)

After: CCV Filed "Friend of the the Court" Brief In Support Of Man Accused Of Assaulting His Girlfriend: In 2006, CCV filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Ohio Supreme Court in support of a man accused of assaulting his girlfriend. The man was being prosecuted under Ohio's domestic violence law. CCV argues that the amendment means courts cannot treat unmarried couples as if they are in a marriage-like relationship, even for the purposes of domestic violence protections. Amendment author David Langdon co-wrote the CCV brief. (People for the American Way, 8/29/0, CCV amicus brief.)
The report cites a number of additional examples.

Amendment C supporters in South Dakota have made similar claims that "all" the measure would do is bolster the state's current ban on same-sex marriages and support "traditional" marriage.

There's always a larger agenda, it seems.

By the way, if you live in South Dakota and want to vote in the upcoming election, the deadline to register is Monday, October 23. Click here for information about how to do it.

No comments: