“The backers of the successful ballot proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriage did not get the occupations of the majority of those who contributed to the campaign despite a state law requiring them to gather that information. But the state’s top election official said Monday that the wording of the law allows them to get away with that. Joe Kanefield said they do not have to give back the donations that came without the required information or even to pay a fine. A review of the public reports filed by the Yes for Marriage campaign shows occupations listed for only about one out of five contributors.” [Yuma Sun]
Arizona Gay Marriage Ban Donors Improperly Filled Out Forms
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
Arden McHugh
Gee, if it was one of the gay groups that did this, they would be penalized in a heartbeat. Gotta love that double-standard!
Charles J. Mueller
@Arden McHugh:
Yeah, ain’t that the gawd-awful truth, Arden?
But, if you have God as your backer and you can ignore the Constitutional rights of taxpaying American citizens, why should they have to worry about dotting every “i” and crossing every “t”?
Details. Details. Who needs details. Obviously, these people have more important things to worry about, like deciding on what the next civil-right they will vote away, for instance.
Idle fingers are the devil’s play toy, you know? ;-0
horus
thank you for alerting me to this. i will be contacting my state rep. first thing monday
Alan down in Florida
“But the state’s top election official said Monday that the wording of the law allows them to get away with that.”
Whereas violating the spirit if not the letter of the law is reprehensible it is the American standard. It’s called a loophole folks. Our movement has done similar things since day one.
Jaroslaw
perhaps the story should be reworded from “…without the required information” to ” without (apparently) optional information…”
seitan-on-a-stick
Gee, it’s the tainted Blood Bank all over again!
(Run from room screaming…..)
Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh! (still running)
Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!
Debby
The wording for Amendment 2 in Florida wasn’t clear at all. Had I not researched the Amendment before I went and voted I could have unknowingly voted the wrong way. I think the language on ballots needs to be written in a way people understand what they are voting for.
Jaroslaw
Debby – it can be. In Michigan, voting yes means you are FOR the proposal and obviously vice versa.
Start a petition drive – it would be interesting to see crooked politicians say they are against CLEAR referenda! đ