I don’t think we should be so keen about this. Firstly, think of the psychological effect it will have on the LGBT citizens of California if that were to happen. You can’t distinguish hateful votes from “ironic” votes. Secondly, there’s sure to be some nutcase who would take the passage of the proposition as a license to go out and shoot some gay people.
Edit: I guess what I’m saying is, LGBT people have suffered enough anxiety and persecution already. It would be wrong to add some more, even only briefly, for the sake of making a political point about the initiative process.
Big T - Yeah, that was the joke I was going for. Glad you caught it.
As for the rest, I’m in agreement that this is aggravated asshattery by aggravated asshats. Hopefully enough people of goodwill and sense response and prevent this type of nonsense from becoming a tactic in other states/issues.
First, did anyone else notice the lawyers name? matt_mcl…
Second, this is clearly a result of the way that California allows any moronic thing on the ballot if they get enough signatures for it. And morons will sign anything.
The biggest (IMO) problem with the initiative process is that, too often, it requires that the bad guys are lazier than the good guys.
Prop 8 (anti-SSM) passed in 2008 largely, in my estimation, because a black man was running for POTUS - and that drew out the non-white vote – especially the Hispanic (read: conservative RCC) vote.
While they were there anyway, might as well vote the way the Church wants on the Prop.
Prop 65 was well intended but insanely stupid. It was a boon for sign makers though.
An acquaintance of mine was out here visiting from NY. She saw one of those signs on a McDonald’s and thought that she was clever as hell by pointing it out to people walking in and posting about it on her Facebook page. “OMG. They admit that McDonald’s food causes CANCER and people eat there anywayz.”
Not only at places where you buy food. For some years now, every apartment where I’ve lived has had signs Prop 65 warning signs posted around the property. (Not necessarily a big boon for sign makers – they just write up a one-page Word document with the warning in large font and print a bunch of copies to hang on the walls.) Or else, it’s given as a page in our rental agreements.
Lawrence was fairly narrow IIRC. It was ( I am willing to be corrected here) struck down because the statute only criminalised male homosexual conduct.
Proposition 65 was a ballot initiative that required businesses to post publicly viewable warnings if they had amounts of these chemicals present - things including alcohol, benzene, glass wool.
And there is no penalty for posting an unnecessary Prop 65 warning. It also enabled anybody to sue businesses that failed to post signs even if the person bringing the suit had not been personally injured, creating legions of bounty hunters. So rather than risk a large fine or lawsuit for having a cleaner hidden in a supply closet somewhere, business operators just post the signs everywhere. They have become ubiquitous and useless for warning people of any real danger. For example, parking garages, airports, coffee shops and even Disneyland have to display the signs.
Anywhere where there’s ethanol, methanol, or oral contraceptives! Prop 65 is a good example of poor implementation of laws through the initiative process - you can see why people voted for it, thinking they were doing good, but the details of the law made the warnings too ubiquitous, and they’re mostly (properly) ignored - you’re unlikely to inhale and accidentally expose yourself to oral contraceptives anywhere outside a manufacturing facility for those contraceptives.
But California’s initiative process has been too frakked up for a while now.
If you added up all the black people who voted for Prop 8, and all the Hispanic people who voted for Prop 8, you’d end up with roughly half the number of white people who voted for Prop 8.
The meme that Prop 8 only passed because dark-skinned people voted for it really needs to die.
Actually, the majority opinion got five votes on equal protection grounds. There was one concurrent vote from Justice O’Connor, in which she agreed with the judgement but on the grounds that it only criminalized male conduct, rather than with the finding of error and overturning of Bowers v. Hardwick. Cite.
The list of chemicals on Prop. 65 (I had a Prop 65 sign in my garage at one point (no, not required)) was manipulated by the opponents - it was obvious that it would pass, so they added chemicals so the Prop cover just about every business.
IIRC, there was an attempt to add a chemical used in water treatment facilities - yes, so the water company would have to warn you of the dangers of drinking tap water
You’re wrong on this. He’s officially crazy. He tried this back in 2004 with a proposition requiring that the Bible be used as a textbook in public schools.
Prop 65 is a good example of poor implementation of laws through the initiative process - you can see why people voted for it, thinking they were doing good, but the details of the law made the warnings too ubiquitous, and they’re mostly (properly) ignored - you’re unlikely to inhale and accidentally expose yourself to oral contraceptives anywhere outside a manufacturing facility for those contraceptives.