If we’re going to get our rights via the legislative process than we are subject to the legislative mechanisms in place. Including People’s Vetos. This is not Prop 8, where they’re using a Constitutional Amendment inappropriately as a People’s Veto. This process is a part of every bill that passes in Maryland. The petition and the referendum are related to and directly about the Bill itself. Not the underlying issues. One might vote against the bill & still support gay marriage. Because GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT THE ISSUE OF THE REFERENDUM; gay marriage is only the subject of the bill put up for approval by the people of Maryland. I thought posting the link to a copy of the standard petition form would make this clear; but I’m sorry you still don’t understand how the legislative process works in Maryland.

To reiterate.
In Maryland the only outlet for direct democracy is the people’s veto which was used for this bill. This is precisely why I oppose direct democracy. It does not guarantee rights for unpopular minorities and it can result in unethical plebiscites.

If we’re going to move toward marriage equality legislatively rather than through the courts we have to respect the legislative process.

When people in Maryland sign these sorts of petitions (which are all the same except for the Name of the bill) they are indicating their support for the principals of direct democracy and nothing further can be inferred. They are saying “Bill A” should be subjected to a plebiscite; and nothing more.

I don’t know what her underlying views are. Neither do you. Neither does anyone commenting here. And there’s no way to determine as much with the evidence we have available to us.

We’re all grasping at straws. You just think your straws are some sort of solid proof or something.

Your argument about the text of the bill being other than the subject of the bill is presenting a distinction without a difference. The text is the subject.

McCaskill did not respond to her pastor’s sermon about how every bill should be presented to the public for a vote. Let’s not pretend that this is the case.

I’m not so much convinced that she’s anti-gay as that she’s stupidly ignorant of the issues that face us.

If so, this suggests that her credentials for the job are shaky. Personally, I’ll be looking for some reference to her actual understanding of the forces that face the students for whom she is supposed to be an advocate.

Now, they should and they shouldn’t is another matter.

Do you really want the same standard applied to your ability to sign a petition, join a political party, or vote your conscience? The government doesn’t get to call the shots, but your employer can call all the shots, even for lawful and constitutionally protected activities that take place outside of work?

This year, we have employers forcing employees to take unpaid time to stand behind political candidates on a stage for photo ops or face action. We have employees being told that if they vote the wrong way, their jobs are in jeopardy.

That seems to be the mode people here are embracing, as long as it favors your side.

I’ve been saying it for a week: this sword cuts both ways.