May 18, 2008

Sex Strike Constitutional Amendment Opposing Iraq War Proposed In Colorado

If a proposed ballot initiative passes this November, there will be a no sexual fireworks launched on January 1, 2009 in Colorado.

That's what one man wants--not a referendum, proclamation, or resolution--but an amendment to the Colorado Constitution mandating a one day "sex strike" by women to show opposition to the war in Iraq:
A graduate student at the University of Colorado-Denver is proposing a statewide ballot initiative that would ask voters to include in the state Constitution a one-day sex strike by women to symbolize opposition to the Iraq War.
Yeah, that'll work. (Full disclosure--I attend CU-Denver, and no, it wasn't me) caught up with Page Penk, the initiative's author, and asked why there was a need for such a drastic measure:
"The war is underground. It's secret. It's not affecting the middle class. It's not being covered by the media. I feel like the war is taboo to talk about."
As Face the State quips, Penk needs to get out a little more.

Here is the original text, which received approval to begin collecting the signatures necessary to put the initiative on the ballot:
The initiative asks voters: "Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: Shall there be a sex strike by the women only, January 1st, 2009, for one day in length, in support of the wife's and parents of U.S. combat troops receiving pay for support services rendered to the military, through an amendment to the Colorado Constitution?"

After an hour of arguing, Page got approval from the board to begin collecting signatures for the question to appear on the ballot. He will need to collect more than 76,000 signatures.

Penk said the idea is a creative way to make a statement.

"This is about respect for the families of our military," he told the Web site.
To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds of, "they said if George W. Bush were reelected, we would have less privacy in our sex lives, and they were right!"

One could question, in a serious manner, the legal ramifications of such an amendment to Colorado's citizens, or the intent of the author's back door approach to inserting such anti-war schlock into the state's constitution, but that might give moonbats like Peng a little too much credit. The intent is to get his 15 seconds of Internet fame.


But the initiative has cleared the first hurdle of review, and now goes to the people of Colorado for 76,000 signatures and final ballot approval.

Here is the Legislative Staff response to Penk's proposal:
April 11, 2008

TO: Page and Chester Penk
FROM: Legislative Council Staff and Office of Legislative Legal Services
SUBJECT: Proposed initiative measure 2007-2008 #97, concerning a sex strike in support of combat troops.

Section 1-40-105 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes, requires the directors of the Colorado Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services to "review and comment" on initiative petitions for proposed laws and amendments to the Colorado constitution. We hereby submit our comments to you regarding the appended proposed initiative.

The purpose of this statutory requirement of the Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services is to provide comments intended to aid proponents in determining the language of their proposal and to avail the public of knowledge of the contents of the proposal. Our first objective is to be sure we understand your intent and your objective in proposing the amendment. We hope that the statements and questions contained in this memorandum will provide a basis for discussion and understanding of the proposal.

The major purposes of the proposed amendment appear to be:

1. To mandate a sex strike by women in the state of Colorado on January 1, 2009, in support of United States combat troops.

2. To amend the Colorado Constitution.

Technical Comments
The following comments address technical issues raised by the form of the proposed initiative. These comments will be read aloud at the public meeting only if the proponents so request. You will have the opportunity to ask questions about these comments at the review and comment meeting. Please consider revising the proposed initiative as suggested below.

1. It is standard drafting practice to use small capital letters to show the language being added to the Colorado constitution. For example, the first line of your proposal would read "[SHALL THERE BE A SEX STRIKE BY THE WOMEN ONLY, ON JANUARY 1, 2009,...]." Would the proponents consider using this standard drafting practice in their proposal?

2. The proponents use "wife's and parents" in the proposal, which means the possessive form of a single wife and multiple parents. Is it the proponents intent to mean "wives and parents" and, if so, would they consider changing that language?

3. The text of the proposed initiative is in the form of a ballot question, rather than the actual language they wish to see amend a particular place in the constitution. Would the proponents be willing to amend their proposal to include specific placement instructions and language for the constitution?

Substantive Comments and Questions
The substance of the proposed initiative raises the following comments and questions:

1. Article V, section 1 (5.5) of the Colorado constitution requires all proposed initiatives to have a single subject. What is the single subject of the proposed initiative?

2. It would be helpful to further define "sex strike" to clarify who it applies to and who it does not apply to, if anyone.

3. The application of the proposed amendment to women only could raises constitutional questions concerning discrimination and disparate treatment. Have the proponents considered a response to such concerns?

4. If passed, the proposed initiative could not take effect until the vote is proclaimed by the governor. Sometimes, that does not happen until after January 1. Would the proponents consider a later date to be certain the action occurs after the proclamation of the vote?
You know, between this and the "Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission" proposed to Denver's City Council, it appears that the state's moonbats aren't confined to the People's Republic of Boulder or posh ski resorts any longer.

Good grief!

Exit questions: what effect, if any, will this have on current marriages--the ballot singles out wives--and will it apply to same-sex couples as well? Inquiring minds want to know . . . (not really)

Labels: , , , ,

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home