Good evening District 27. Today, I would like to briefly discuss with you why I am voting No on Amendment E to the South Dakota Constitution. Amendment E has all the trappings of taking a knee for the “woke agenda” by using gender neutral language for certain office holders (e.g., changing the pronoun he to Governor or Attorney General) in the name of equality.
The neutering of the language used by the initial framers of the South Dakota Constitution is no different than what I experienced back in the late 1980s and early 1990s when publishing companies took the liberty to strip any pronoun reference of the inspired Word of God (the Logos) out of the original English translation of the Bible. He and Him were replaced with “God” and His was replaced with the possessive form of God with apostrophe "s" at the end. It was all done out of appeasement to be politically correct at the time, when we know God is Trinitarian: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The point is that words matter. Therefore, is this change to the South Dakota Constitution necessary, considering that women currently hold 22 seats in the House, 7 seats in the Senate, and we also have a female Governor and Secretary of State? Where is the inequality? The pay is the same regardless of whether one is a female or a male legislator. Changing the language won’t empower or automatically bring gender equality to women who run for office. It’s the women who are empowered and have the courage to run for political office who create change for the better. Now THAT is empowering. Simply changing words in the Constitution to make it more appealing and palatable won’t empower women. It’s like putting icing on a cake. The frosting covers what is good beneath it. My reference to the icing on the cake is analogous to the proposed Amendment E. Changing the state constitution with gender-neutral text won’t resolve the gender inequality that is in our state. Rather, it’s the rights described in the text of the State Constitution when read in its full context and the rights upheld by the Judiciary, that brings the document to life with meaning and purpose and consequently is what brings about true change and empowerment for women.
I concur with District 27 Liz May on this issue who said, “[I]t doesn’t seem women in our state have had much trouble getting elected to office…I understand the desire to want to do this, I just don’t think it’s necessary. So I’m not going to support it” (1).
Moreover, those who favor changing the Constitution to gender-neutral language say there is no cost for doing this. I beg to differ. There is a real cost associated with changing the South Dakota Constitution, especially when it has been submitted on a ballot for the voters to decide. Elections cost the taxpayer money no matter what. There is a cost to the Office of the Attorney General to review the Amendment before it's put on the ballot. Then, there is the cost to print the explanation as to why it's on the ballot in a voter guide pamphlet along with the pros and cons as to why one ought to vote yes or no for the amendment. Let's also not forget the cost of printing the ballot and tabulating the votes by the county auditors and then the cost of reporting it to the Office of the Secretary of State. Finally, there is the cost of any legal challenges that may come as a result of the amendment passing as well as the cost of reprinting the amendment's proposed changes on official government correspondence and archived documents. In addition to the compiled costs that no one wants to discuss, the other question remains: Which office staff at the state government will be tasked with this added responsibility, and how much staff time is going to be required to make the amended changes from their normal duties? This is not simply using the Find and Replace commands on your typical word processing program such as Microsoft Word. We are talking about having to rewrite each state law with gender-neutral language from when South Dakota first became a state back in 1889. Do you see how ridiculous this gets?
Call me old fashioned or a chauvinist, but here is a question I pose to the men serving in our current state legislature: How many of you when going into the voting booth on November 5th plan to vote YES on Amendment E? It is one thing to pass HB1175 or Senate Joint Resolution 505 by saying YES while on the House or Senate floor to save face with your female counterparts, but how many of you will be voting YES on the ballot when you are in the privacy of the voting booth in November or the comfort of your home when completing an absentee ballot? I challenge any of our male legislators to publicly voice their opinion on this ballot measure.
Bottom line: It is high time the legislature got back to doing the people's business and stopped meddling in petty matters that have little significance in the everyday lives of South Dakotans. The state legislature should be focused on more important issues than prioritizing whether gender-neutral language should be written into our State Constitution and Laws. If this Amendment passes, what will be next? Changing the gender-neutral language to “agender” language since there are some people who don’t identify with any gender? See the slippery slope that one approaches when you mess with pronoun usage? Have a good week. God bless.
Source:
Comments