The murmur of the snarkmatrix…

August § The Common Test / 2016-02-16 21:04:46
Robin § Unforgotten / 2016-01-08 21:19:16
MsFitNZ § Towards A Theory of Secondary Literacy / 2015-11-03 21:23:21
Jon Schultz § Bless the toolmakers / 2015-05-04 18:39:56
Jon Schultz § Bless the toolmakers / 2015-05-04 16:32:50
Matt § A leaky rocketship / 2014-11-05 01:49:12
Greg Linch § A leaky rocketship / 2014-11-04 18:05:52
Robin § A leaky rocketship / 2014-11-04 05:11:02
P. Renaud § A leaky rocketship / 2014-11-04 04:13:09
Jay H § Matching cuts / 2014-10-02 02:41:13

Retail Politics
 / 

Jay Bookman tells it like it is:

Think back a little more than a year ago, to the political campaigns of 2004. One of the hottest issues in presidential debates and congressional campaigns was the threat to traditional marriage posed by gay people seeking the right to wed. …

But a year later, it seems pertinent to ask: Have you heard or read a single word about a federal gay-marriage amendment since the election?

December 16, 2005 / Uncategorized

2 comments

No, I haven’t heard anything about a federal amendment, but here in Michigan our new guilded state constitutional amendment is staying in the news.

The (Republican) state attorney general has ruled that the amendment means that the state cannot offer domestic partner benefits to employees. (Private businesses are not affected by the ruling, but public universities may be.) The (Democratic) governor is fighting the ruling in court, saying that denying benefits isn’t what voters intended. (Read about it here.)

Me, I’m still disgusted that the amendment passed at all, but I’m only one vote.

Oh, and while Dobson may not have weighed in on a Federal amendment since January, his organization did have this to say about the controversy in Michigan.

The snarkmatrix awaits you

Below, you can use basic HTML tags and/or Markdown syntax.