What do dead voters have to do with coed restrooms?

[ArfinGreebly]

So, uh, how is it that we never got around to the whole "dead voters" thing?

I mean, I could give a crap about WHAT the argument was -- restrooms, foot baths, drinking fountains, sani-wipes in grocery stores . . .

But DEAD VOTERS?

The dead voters aren't adequately represented?

A judge actually approved or rejected something BECAUSE OF DEAD VOTERS?

Dead Freaking Voters?

Anyone?  Bueller?

[MicroBalrog]

Maybe because we've established the reporting article isn't exactly being truthful about everything else, so we doubt the dead voters part is true, too. I do, at least.

[De Selby]

Maybe because we've established the reporting article isn't exactly being truthful about everything else, so we doubt the dead voters part is true, too. I do, at least.

You are right to doubt it-that's not what the decisions said either.  Basically, the argument was about at what point in time you measure registered voters for the purpose of determining the total, so that you can decide how many signatures you need on the petition to get this to the ballot.

The proponents of putting the law on the ballot claim that the measure used by the County leaves too many people who are likely to be dead on the voter rolls, and thus unfairly increases the number of signatures they needed to get to make the legislation a ballot issue.

[RevDisk]

I don't like anti-sodomy laws, either, but they hardly constitute total govt. control over "any business between two consenting adults."  Sure you can find all kinds of intrusive laws in America's past (or present), but it's never been a Taliban state over here. 

MB, I thought you liked America because it's more free than other places.  RevDisk is talking as if it were the world capitol of intrusive statism. 

Oy.  Perhaps we have a literary misunderstanding.  When I said "stuck its nose in any business between two consenting adults it could", I meant what I said.  NOT total government control, NOT Taliban state, NOT the world capital of instrusive statism.  But overly instrusive, I'd argue.  You don't have any nosy coworkers that stick their nose into your business when it is not required?

As MB said, I'd recommend reading up on anti-sodomy laws and interracial marriage bans to see how long they've actually been on the books.  While I think "Taliban State" is overstating, read up on the Jim Crow laws.  It was not pretty, and lasted a lot longer than most folks think. 


The government/marriage thing is just a personal quirk.  I don't like marriage licenses.  Marriage is moreso a religious thing.  IMHO, I'd prefer if it was seperate than a legal/tax civil union.  Previously, 38 states used marriage licenses for racial discrimination.  A number of states, the total of which I am unsure, used marriage licenses as a means of making remarriage more difficult for someone that was previously divorced.  It's largely just a formality now, so I don't get very worked up about it. 

[Perd Hapley]

Since I have agreed with you that we have a history of intrusive laws in this country, I'm not sure why you're giving me a reading assignment.