seldnei | (no subject)

I got my sample ballot the other day, and I did not know that we had one of those "define marriage as between a man and a woman" amendments on the ballot.

I am beyond outraged. Not surprised in the least, mind you, this is the state where gay couples can be foster parents for however long a kid needs them, but can't legally adopt those kids. Apparently adoption papers transfer the gay cooties or something. I'm surprised we haven't had to vote on this already, but that's as far as the shock goes.

There are so many reasons I'm voting NO YOU MORONS! on this one. The obvious one is--hello? If you want to get married, you ought to be able to. I'd like all my friends to have the opportunity to join me in my tax breaks.

Of course, the bright side to this is that

dealio actually has to vote, now. HA!

The other thing that ... is it disturbing? Maybe? Well, it's disquieting for sure--that is the one amendment that I did not have to look up to understand. The language on all the others is extremely confusing (Amendment 1 actually reads as though it's proposing the opposite of what it's actually supposed to do), but that one? Clear as freaking crystal.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That's one of my other big problems with the amendment, yes. It's redundant. And we have eight bazillion amendments to the state constitution (pregnant pigs!), and it seems like, I dunno, government sprawl. (But it's hard to say that without sounding like you're okay with the law, which I am not.)

As for super-double protection, I hope they haven't deciphered Amendment 1, which is all about repealing discriminatory laws ...