Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rebelgecko | Hacker News Reader

IMO this year the ballot props are much more meaningful to the average person than usual. The perennial niche prosp about kidney dialysis aren't making a showing for what feels like the first time in a decade.

There are some big proposed changes to how local bond measures work, rent control, and the criminal justice system, IMO those are the ones spending the most time researching and considering the consequences.

As far as the more niche ones this time around, there's the same-sex marriage prop (which I believe is purely symbolic and doesn't have an actual impact on same sex marriage in California) and the prop designed to force the AIDs Healthcare Foundation to spend more money on AIDS healthcare (IIUC currently they spend most of their money on political causes like lobbying against rezoning that would allow denser housing)

View on HN

> same-sex marriage prop (which I believe is purely symbolic...

Same-sex marriage is currently outlawed by the California constitution as a result of Prop 8 from 2008. That clause is void as a result of the Hollingsworth and Obergefell decisions, but there are multiple members of the Supreme Court who have explicitly said that they would like to overturn Obergefell, so it's a good idea to get ahead of the potential catastrophe by taking the bad law fully off the books, rather than relying on a capricious and extremist court to stick to a rights-defending decision for any amount of time.

Doesn't the Respect for Marriage Act [1] ensure they can't roll back same-sex marriage like they did abortion?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act

> Doesn't the Respect for Marriage Act [1] ensure they can't roll back same-sex marriage like they did abortion?

No. RMA lets states ban gay marriage. It just requires them to honour other states' gay marriages.

Thanks for the clarification. I still wonder if it matters all that much. You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom, and it's a non-issue in practical terms.

States banning same-sex marriage within their borders takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful. But they can't actively prosecute people for crossing state lines to marry. They have to provide them the same rights as hetero-married couples, even for things like state benefits and taxes.

> I still wonder if it matters all that much.

It's a daily reminder that you're a second class citizen, that your family isn't really a family worth respecting. It matters a great deal.

Imagine a state prohibiting mixed race marriage, and saying "oh it doesn't really matter" because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere.

It's spit on your face on one of the most important days of your life.

> because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere

What I said:

> You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom

Driving over state lines is an unreasonable burden to getting married. Don't put words in my mouth please.

I also said:

> banning same-sex marriage...takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful

That's why it's important to read a whole comment.

I wish the Respect for Marriage Act actually forced states to legalize same-sex marriage. But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples. That's quite a difference compared to abortion.

So your solution for a prejudiced law is the hypothetical possibility that some other state passes some other law, for which you have absolutely no evidence. Also, even if it did - your solution takes absolutely no account of how federalism works. You're proposing that RfMA requires a state to recognise a marriage undertaken in their own jurisdiction, done with the express purpose of sidestepping local law. Is that really how RfMA will shake out? Was that the intent of RfMA? Is that how Mississippi will interpret it? Is that how SCOTUS - now or future - will interpret it? And when they don't? What about a state extending civil or criminal penalties to participating in what it considers a sham marriage, much as states now do for abortion?

> But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples.

No, they can prevent same-sex marriages from taking place. That's identical to abortion. Even more effective, as you can be mailed an abortifacient, but you can't be mailed a wedding. Same-sex marriage, post-RfMA, is in the same position as abortion post-Dobbs. I'm meant to be upset about one but 'give thanks' for the other?

Even setting all of the above aside, you're acting like being insulted is just fine. That a person can go through their lives having their own government - a government of the people, supposedly - insult and denigrate their family. And that they should be thankful it's not worse.

That is one helluva take.

> your solution for a prejudiced law

It's a workaround, not a solution.

> you're acting like being insulted is just fine

I said exactly the opposite of that. There's no point continuing this discussion.

It's neither a solution nor a workaround, for the simple reason that it doesn't work either as a matter of law or in practice.

You began this thread with a deeply incorrect assertion about a federal law, then someone corrected you, then you asserted that the correction doesn't really matter, and now you're committing to ever more contorted logic to defend that initial incorrect assertion. I would very respectfully suggest that it's sometimes healthy to admit that a take was just bad. It's ok. We all have 'em. I'm sure you're a great dude. Just take the L.

> It's neither a solution nor a workaround, for the simple reason that it doesn't work either as a matter of law or in practice

What makes you so sure? Are you a lawyer?

I mean you said stuff like

> as you can be mailed an abortifacient, but you can't be mailed a wedding

Which sounds quite incorrect and absurd to me. Mailing, or even e-mailing, marriage licenses is trivially possible. Meanwhile, there are multiple lawsuits and laws trying to prevent the mailing of abortifacients and/or revoking FDA approvals for abortifacients.

I didn't really feel like rebutting the rest of your post, but it was filled with similar falsehoods and speculation presented as fact.

Zoom weddings were allowed during the pandemic. Plenty of states allow non-residents to marry already. What exactly makes it unworkable?

> I would very respectfully suggest that it's sometimes healthy to admit that a take was just bad. It's ok.

I'd love to. You just haven't been very convincing, sorry. Focus on being more informative and helpful, not argumentative and demeaning. Believe it or not, I'm on your side.

> there's the same-sex marriage prop (which I believe is purely symbolic and doesn't have an actual impact on same sex marriage in California)

It removes an on-the-books clause that was rendered inoperable by a SCOTUS decision. I think it’s a step above symbolic since any future changes in SCOTUS jurisprudence reversing or partially reversing Obergefell (which I don’t think are at all likely with this court on this issue, but it doesn’t hurt to be prudent) could make it operable again.

I think prop 8 was previously nullified by Hollingsworth v. Perry?

Not saying it'll never matter, but if OP has a finite amount of focus IMO it's better to spend it on laws that will have an immediate impact over ones that require multiple hypotheticals to come into play

> Finite amount of focus.

It revises one statement in the state constitution in a very straightforward way.

It takes an infintessimal amount of focus to decide if you're in favor of that change or not.

Whether the reason it's on this year's ballot is neurotic or strategic is on a level with whether you should buy 4 or 6 rolls of toilet paper next time you're at the store. You already know if you need toilet paper or not, so that difference is relatively inconsequential.

> I think prop 8 was previously nullified by Hollingsworth v. Perry?

Looks like it. That decision came down around the first time I excised the daily news from my life after spending too many years as a news junkie and before I valued reading court opinions so I missed it.

Re: Focus: Most ballot measures that have ever appeared on the ballot aren’t worth the paper they were printed on, yet they’re still there. Short of eliminating the popular ballot initiative process—something I could get behind—we’re long past the point of asking whether something is “worth” voting on for a reason like that. Someone wanted it on the ballot badly enough to make it happen and by our own laws that’s basically their right, so it’s on the ballot. Just like the mofos who always try to get that dumb kidney dialysis measure passed almost every election cycle.

Prop 8 has essentially become a trigger law banning gay marriage, the same as many states pre-Dobbs had trigger laws banning abortion that would become operational as soon as the Supreme Court lifted the national rule against them. While it may viewe by some as unlikely in the near term, thr fact is there is no guarantee kf any warning (much less sufficient earning for signature gathering and an election to repeal it) before such a change would go into effect. Removing the time bomb from the State Constitution is a prudent thing to do if you are at all concerned with the right it would deny.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com