Once they turn in the signatures and begin elections reporting, we must publicize both signers and donors - so that we and our supporters may refuse to do business with or employ signers and/or donors.
Finally, should the opposition turn in sufficient VALID signatures for a referendum - we must make our case to our fellow citizens while not shooting ourselves in the foot.
As a petition signer or donor to a political campaign we surrender a certain measure of our privacy in order to act as citizen legislators - with the policy trade off that the prospect of public shame may deter some less well-advised initiative/referendum/
Not surprisingly, I favor LGBT marriage both personally and for reasons of policy. I'd favor even more getting .GOV out of the marriage business entirely, but given that I expect armies of flying monkeys to erupt from Rick Santorum's ...ummm....unexpected location shortly before that happens, it looks like 2nd prize is marking sure my community gets the same set of benefits as the hetero kids.
And Lyle? Think of being refused the right to visit with or make decisions for your ill spouse in a hospital or nursing home; of being told that a business you'd spent 40 years building together and the house you paid for....were going to the family that gave you endless crap for that 40 years and you needed to find a nice gutter to live in. Then there's the joy of being coerced to testify against ones partners. And medical benefits. And immigration law, etc ad nauseum. Best of all, think of a 20 year relationship that's gone south...and no legal recourse on how to split up the goodies.
Marriage is the best route, rather than coming up with or settling for some back of the bus "domestic partnership" thing with a different definition in every state that honors it, and haphazard reciprocity at best. Kind of like your marriage was treated like a CPL when you travel.
Neat, eh?
1 comment:
As you say, it WILL be interesting, especially in light of what is currently going on in California.
Post a Comment