|
Say No to Discrimination
South Dakota can do better than Amendment C.
On November 7, South Dakotan voters will vote on a discriminatory amendment that ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, and quasi-marital relationships for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Good neighbors don't discriminate, and by voting No in November, we can show we care about our community.
| Sample Letter for Campaign |
Subject: I pledge to vote No on Amendment C
Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,
I oppose Amendment C, a proposed amendment to South Dakota's constitution that would ban domestic partnerships, civil unions, and quasi-marital relationships for both heterosexual and homosexual families. I believe Amendment C would hurt our neighbors and communities.
By signing this pledge, I agree to stay informed, active, and involved in the campaign and to vote "No" on November 7, 2006.
Signed by:
|
Campaign Launched:
April 06, 2006
|
Regardless of intention of placing Amendment C on the ballot, the law in its current form may have consequences beyond defining marriage. Not only would it prohibit domestic partnerships and civil unions for both straight and gay families, it prohibits quasi-marital relationships, a legally ambiguous term that has caused unintended consequences in other states. Some areas it might affect include:
1. Domestic Violence: When Ohio passed a similar constitutional amendment in 2004, women abused by their long-term boyfriends could not file domestic violence charges since the only relationship the state would recognize was between husband and wife. A Yes vote put abusers back on the street sooner.
2. Tribal Sovereignty: Tribal governments interact with the state government at a variety of points. If Amendment C passes it may reduce the type of families that are eligible for enrollment in state programs. It also places a premium on only type of family structure, regardless of cultural history.
3. Senior Care: Seniors often live together without being married for a variety of reasons. Some widows and widowers may not marry because of complications with their pensions. Two heterosexual women may live together after their husbands die for companionship and co-mingle their finances. Some seniors may want to remarry but, for religious reasons, do not. This amendment may add difficult steps in caring for our seniors, endanger their pensions, and disrespect their wishes for medical or end of life care.
4. Fortune 500 companies are increasingly offering domestic partner benefits to both their straight and gay employees. Successful businesses see domestic partner benefits as a way to attract top talent. This amendment tells business that they do not know what is best for their own business.
5. In Michigan, people supporting a similar amendment said voting Yes would not affect health insurance. They lied. The day after the vote, the same people who were saying a Yes vote would not affect health insurance were suing to take it away from non-married families and their children. These lies are dangerous and immoral.
Amendment C does not make a single family safer in South Dakota or any marriage more secure. In fact, it does the opposite. We should be focusing on making it easier for families to stay together rather than blaming gay people.
Working together we can defeat Amendment C before it goes into effect. Vote "no" on C!
Say No to Discrimination