Do you remember that proposition from a couple of years ago that let employers off the hook on providing domestic partner benefits? IIRC there had been a huge amount of controversy because the sponsors of it needed X thousand signatures just to get it on the ballot, and a lot of people were reporting that the petition they'd signed was represented as being /for/ requiring domestic partner benefits.
Sadly, this'll probably pass. If freaking OREGON can pass an amendment refusing to recognise gay marriage, I don't think there's any chance of it getting shot down here.
What pisses me off is the second one. It's like the first one wasn't exclusionary enough, so they needed to put in a second one keeping gay (or unmarried) couples from receiving ANY kind of legal recognition. *hates on*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-04-12 10:20 am (UTC)Sadly, this'll probably pass. If freaking OREGON can pass an amendment refusing to recognise gay marriage, I don't think there's any chance of it getting shot down here.
What pisses me off is the second one. It's like the first one wasn't exclusionary enough, so they needed to put in a second one keeping gay (or unmarried) couples from receiving ANY kind of legal recognition. *hates on*