Summary
What would this big bad amendment do? Other than revive the same discriminatory dialogue that we thought couldn't get any worse when we had to go through it a dozen years ago for Proposition 1 ... it really isn't clear. The general consensus among the flurry of sound bites is that the constitutional amendment would make it more difficult for the current law to be overturned, should any of Idaho's gay couples be so eager to wed that they are willing to battle all the way to the Supreme Court, where they will, the logic goes, be backed up by their old drinkin' and dancin' buddies, those aforementioned activist judges. But that's by no means a sure thing. The law may be nearly as vulnerable after as it was before. Or maybe not. In either case, the stench of "Let's just let our children deal with our election-year mess" is all over this turd.
In fact, the only thing that's clear in this whole debacle is the shameful--yeah, we said it!--way that Idaho's lawmakers have skirted the issues in their testimony and interviews. More than a few actually admitted to mainstream newspapers that they were opposed to the change, but voted for it only because of constituent pressure. Or they spewed non-answers, like when Sen. Tim Corder of Mountain Home testified, "Not every minority is right ... The greatest love of all is telling someone, 'You're wrong.'" Still others, like Sen. Dick Compton of Couer d'Alene, told newsies they would have voted against it, "if it would have made a difference."See the full content of this document
Extract
The Gay Menace& in an Election-Year Embarrassment, These Men and Women Are Putting the Power to Discriminate in Voter's Hands
Damn you, activist judges! You flighty, elitist homewreckers may exist only in the hypothetical realm, but you've got Idaho's illustrious citizen legislature terrified--so terrified, in fact, that they're willing to double outlaw something th...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
