when a state goes deep into the red...
they really pull out all of the stops...
it seems like common sense...
awareness is important...advocacy however should be done elsewhere
That's the kicker...when and where does just sighting, or in this case directly pointing out, that there's been omissions...become advocacy. Does the fine line exist when a portion of society sees the omission as unnecessary or even unwarranted, based on cultural/religious standards? It gets rather involved very quickly.
I will say, in my personal opinion, that the exclusion is directly correlated to religious views of acceptability...because under a secular dynamic...there's no reason the inclusion of history, as it relates to key figures who were homosexual, should be omitted.
If it should pass, I do foresee however, that an effort will be made (perhaps not overtly, but with intention) to emphasize that individuals who were "unsavory", in history who were/are homosexual, are somehow MORE egregious BECAUSE of their homosexuality, than like "unsavory" figures who were/are heterosexual.
It should be interesting to see.
