Forehead saw

Sigh. It sure says a lot more than the news story.

In an unprecedented 21-15 vote Thursday, the State Senate approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriages in California.

Unprecedented! There's never been a 21-15 vote in the State Senate! (Is this true? I don't feel like looking it up right now) Or maybe it's unprecedented in that such a bill has never passed (although I think it has).

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act changes the state's definition of marriage to a civil contract between two persons instead of between a man and a woman. It includes a statute declaring that religious institutions may choose whether to wed same-sex couples.

(As a personal issue, I approve of this definition of marriage for the government.) I'm not sure I understand... wouldn't religious institutions have that choice, statute or no? That's like saying "The bill includes a statute declaring that people may write with either hand." Is our legislature now in the business of telling people the rare instances where they actually have a choice?

"If we can secure rights for same-sex couples, it will be a slap in the face to those who pander to people's fears," [Boalt LGBT Caucus chick Lisa Cisneros] said.

And who doesn't want to slap someone else in the face?

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 9/06/2005 08:58:00 AM #
Comments (7)

. . .

Comments:

Again you look stupid. Try learning grammar. Both unprecedented and 21-15 are modifiers for the vote. Unprecedented is not modifying 21-15.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:15 PM, September 06, 2005

 

If you really want to nitpick the grammer, what you say would be true if it read "unprecedented, 21-15 vote." As it is, unprecedented could easily be modifying "21-15 vote." In any case, calling this an unprecedented vote is lame, because you could easily call just about any vote unprecedented.

"In an unprecedented vote, SB 152 was tabled today!"

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 2:20 PM, September 06, 2005

 

The way you criticize my articles leaves much to be desired.

1. If you really have a stylistic beef with me not putting a comma after "unprecedented," just say that. Inflating that nitpick of grammar into the charge that the story "doesn't say anything" makes no sense.

2. Due to space constraints, I didn't explicitly explain why the vote was unprecedented. That was probably a mistake.

You are incorrect; no such bill has ever been passed before. Gay marriages in Massachusetts and Vermont were made possible by judicial rulings, not legislation. The closest bill to AB849 is California's domestic partership law, which IS mentioned in the article.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:11 AM, September 07, 2005

 

I didn't say the story didn't say anything. Experts say "unprecedented" is an overused word.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 9:02 AM, September 07, 2005

 

or "mindy", even worse...

# posted by  Anonymous : 2:35 PM, September 07, 2005

 

Statement immediately followed by criticism of comma usage: "Sigh. At least it says more than the news story."

Obvious implication: The news story doesn't say anything.

Maintaining that "unprecedented" is an overused word is much different than saying "every vote could be called unprecedented"... which could only be possible if that extra comma really matters to you.

Why even bother to write entries about single overused words and comma preferences?

# posted by  Anonymous : 3:39 PM, September 07, 2005

 

Dude, I used the word for a one-liner. Did you even notice the rest of the post? And who cares about the comma? Comma or no, every vote can be called unprecedented. "The motion to adjourn the senate meeting was passed for an unprecedented 256th time!" (I have no idea what a reasonable number would be here, by the way)

And yes, I suppose the first line does say 'the article didn't say anything.' I'll be sure to label my sarcasm next time. In case you've been following along, a lot of us readers find the idea of an editorial cartoon which just repeats some news story in picture form to be silly.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 3:46 PM, September 07, 2005

 

Post a Comment