I’d really like to thank Joe Budzinski for the relatively civil tone of the recent discussion over at Nova Town Hall (this astonishing statement aside) and for tonight’s town hall meeting where Ann Hull provided him and other conservatives with all the reason they need to make the right decision and vote NO on the marriage prohibition amendment this November.
Ann Hull said:
A contract between two individuals is only limited by your creativity!
Well, that may be the case, but what if you’re not very creative? What if you are an unmarried individual with a significant other who finds marriage to be a pretty good model. If together you create a “legal status”¦that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage”, you’re put into a position where the more closely your contract approximates covenant marriage, the more that contract runs afoul of the amendment language which prohibits recognition of that status.
“Leave me alone” conservatives should understand. If two adult individuals certify that they will be faithful to each other, share property, care for each other, and be a couple until death do they part, why on earth would anybody with a heart want to say no, or worse yet, require the state to intervene in their most highly valued personal contract?
So Joe, that’s the answer to your challenge.
I have also said I’m willing to drop my support for it if the harm the Amendment would cause to those opposing it is shown to be more significant than the positive things I believe the Amendment would accomplish.
You do see the harm that the amendment causes, and the terribly Kafkesque precedent it sets? Don’t you?