SDCAC founder howling about getting caught with his pants down. The law of unintended consequences.
SDCAC’s resident scholar of alchemy, Steve Sibson is howling (figuratively) this morning about getting caught with his pants around his ankles. What am I referring to? The fact that in another state, one legal scholar pointed out that a measure identical to our Initiated Measure 10 which is being offered in Colorado, also using the term “Domestic Partnerships” as IM10 does, stands to bring domestic partnerships into legal recognition.
As one commenter on this website called it – It’s “the law of unintended consequences.”
Anyway, here’s what Sibson had to say in response to my previous post:
Using shallow arguments is what Pat Powers does. That is the closest he can come to debating issues. And as I have pointed out more than once, when it comes to undermining IM10, Pat Powers will simply just make stuff up. And Pat Powers used to work for state government. What does that say about possible corruption that will be found once we open things up in Pierre and take a close look? Pat Powers seems to be desperately protecting the Pierre Capital Culture for some reason. And kind of impression is Pat Powers giving the SD GOP? He is a cancer for the Party and the state of South Dakota.
My, that’s an effective refutation, isn’t it? As opposed to responding to the concerns over the measure he’s promoting, the SDCAC’s office of propaganda attacks the messenger.
As you can tell, In a battle of wits, Steve is outgunned. Because all he’s doing is throwing up is flak to try to distract voters – and especially conservative voters – from the fact they had no idea that their measure would throw the doors open for recognizing domestic partnerships in South Dakota. But that sometimes happens when organizations front measures for out of state groups trying to use SD as a guinea pig for experimenting with democracy for their own ends.
Actually, in the snippet from the same article that I used, Sibson cited in refutation that it was included “because a number of companies that bid on contracts recognize domestic partnerships.” However, isn’t this the same internet commentator who says we can’t place preschool standards into law, because it would open the door to mandated preschool?
So, following Sibson’s oft repeated lines of logic, if we place standards on state contracts into law which recognize domestic partnerships, how does it NOT open the door for further legal recognition of domestic partnerships in the state? Whether he likes it or not, with IM 10, he’s isn’t just legislating on the basis of relationships between Adam and Eve. His measure could memorialize into law regulations surrounding relationships including those between Adam and .… Steve.
That’s the problem with the law of unintended consequences. They’re never what you intend.
Now, noting another point of his rant; Sibson, claims anyone who disagrees with him won’t debate. That’s as he deletes any view casting dispersions on his points from his website. And you know what, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. So, I’ll extend this offer. If Steve himself would care to publicly debate the issue of IM10, bring it on.
Mr. Sibson, if you’d like, you can bring one of the other founders from the SDCAC along with you, and I’ll bring someone as well. Since Dusty Johnson did such a nice job dissecting IM 10 recently on KTTW with Jason Folkerts, maybe he’d be available.
There you go, the gauntlet is thrown. We can either do it mano y mano, or on a tag team basis. Maybe “Just the Facts” or another televised venue would even be willing to host it.
Or is your demand to debate the issue just more flak?
As we’ve come to expect.
Update – Mr. Sibson has updated his original post in reference to this article. However,
there is no acceptance, nor acknowledgment of my offer to debate him on the issue of IM10. Maybe he should rename his website Sibby Online – home of the prairie chicken.
The man who was demanding a debate on the issue, now conveniently forgetting about that demand. Typical.
Not that I could blame him for not wanting to debate the issue. Who wants to be stuck defending the indefensible?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Wouldn’t Amendment C, passed in 2006, trump this? However, I’m glad to see my good friend Steve Sibson supporting an important part of the LGBT agenda that EqSD and EqSD PAC are working for. Politics literally does make strange bedfellows. Not that there is anything wrong with that. 
Todd Epp
Chair
EqSD PAC http://pac.eqsd.org
What Todd? Are you trying to tell us that the SDCAC would offer South Dakota citizens a measure that was clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional?
Dispel that thought from your mind.
“…a measure that was clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional…”
That would be Initiated Measure 11.
If Sibson has gone and caught himself a case of “the gay”, he better get himself booked in one of the anti-gay camps where they teach the homo out of you. I’m sure Lexrex could recommend a good one.
11:15, in fact i do have a place where someone can go for help.
mr. epp, you’re always talking about tops and bottoms. what’s up with that?
Sibby knows he can come to me for help any time he wants, the door is always open. But he’s too proud. And insane.
Ok, one more time… are domestic partnerships, by definition homosexual?