Remember Michigan's 2004 anti-gay-marriage state constitutional amendment? It read:
"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
Opponents expressed concerns that it would be used not only to prevent gay marriage but to eliminate domestic partner benefits offered by, for instance, state universities. Oh no, said the proponents, that's scaremongering:
Supporters of the amendment say it’s not their intention to take away domestic partner benefits and that it’s an argument raised to confuse voters.
The amendment passed. And you already know what's coming next, don't you?
The proponents were, as I said at the time, either dishonest scumbags or morons. I think the most charitable interpretation is that they didn't particularly care if the partners of state workers were stripped of health benefits.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Department of Justice Uses Search Warrant To Get Data On Visitors to Anti-Trump Site - August 14th, 2017
- America At The End of All Hypotheticals - August 14th, 2017
- Lawsplainer: Why John Oliver Is Anti-Diversity Now - August 11th, 2017
- Anatomy of a Scam, Chapter 15: The Wheels, They Grind - August 10th, 2017
- We Interrupt This Grand Jury Lawsplainer For A Search Warrant Lawsplainer - August 9th, 2017