At the same time, I believe that it does underline the basic bigotry of the opposition, and that this iwll become apparent as time goes on for precisely the reaosns you say.

I really LIKE the new word “acknolwedging”

A comment concerning civil service: you don’t get to pick and choose what you do. You serve the country, which in public-facing jobs means servong them without favour or prejudice. If you can’t do that when the laws etc change through constitutional means you resign, no ifs, buts, or equivocation.

I agree, there is sometihng very off-putting about those particular provisions. But I actually see them as a positive in the long run

By letting us know clearly that we just aren’t as good as heteros, they are also accomplishing:

1) acknolwedging that this is being done to acknowledge the moral and legal legitimacy of our demand to be treated equally before the law, and to end this stupid, bigoted prejudice.

2) this may well appease a certain segment of the voters whose basis for voting on a repeal referendum would be to reinforce their wholly imaginary moral and social superiority.

3) They wil have to justify at some point how giving or not gay people any rights protects anyone’s marriage. And, when nothing changes in hawaii concerning the status of hetero marriages, that protect marriage crap is going to look pretty silly.

As for letting certain civil servants out of their responsibilities;

I don’t know this for a certainty, but I believe that such civil “servants” would be low in number, and they would be subject to some ostracism from their peers for refusing to do their jobs. It owuld do them some good, and defuse their victimization whining.

It owuld be better if the prejudice did not have to be kowtowed to, but at the same time, at lreast we’re getting ito ut there that prejudice is am jaor part of this whole brouhaha.