> I guess, somebody's reading comprehension is not up to speed.
> The piece in question calls for the legalization of same sex
> marriages and uses the dog reference only in a tongue-in-cheek
> manner.
I think you're only partially right. It defends gay marriage, but only in a roundabout way: by rehashing the argument about how it's supposedly oh-so-difficult to keep track of domestic partners. True, it's directed at bed-hopping hets instead of homos, but I don't think it's especially helpful in this climate, where benefits for domestic partners is the best one can hope for.
Just as background: the whole discussion is actually NOT about the state granting these benefits, but about the Pennsylvania Employee Benefits Trust Fund (PEBTF), which is the joint union/employer fund. Though obviously, since the state is the employer in question, there are representatives of the executive branch of state government on the board of the fund. Several of the union trustees have been very vocal about wanting to extend these benefits, and there's an opportunity with Rendell's appointees there on the employer side, since he's amenable to it. At the latest meeting of the fund, they floated the idea of doing a study to determine what the cost is.
Sam Smith -- the state representative for Punsxutawney, the House Majority leader, and all around the kind of industry-connected rural Pennsylvania yahoo politician that we all love to hate, and whose constituents Wojtek loves to hate even more -- got wind of this and raised a big stink about "political appointees and union reps meeting in secret" to decide on supposed state policy, and insisted that he be slotted to attend. In real life, the PEBTF is not covered by the sunshine laws, but Rendell's appointees decided to allow Smith to send some of his nasty little staffers in just to avoid any further trouble. All of this was in the wake of the legislature voting itself a large pay increase.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories