I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent. Perhaps implicitly the new policy assumes it is obvious you can mention your husband and anybody giving you problems because of that is violating the policy.
I do think the policy should be explicit about it. It doesn't help to say "We forbid X" if one side's prominent tactic is to redefine X as they see fit. By analogy, it is not enough to say "We forbid discussions about religious beliefs". One also needs to say "Theory of evolution is accepted here as true".
> I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent.
No - just personal experience with similar policies at other places.
Specifically with regards to the gay/husband example I've been sticking to: I don't think they had bad intentions there.
But the problem isn't their intentions; it's what the policy enables. And I've seen what that kind of policy can enable, and it's not good.
> I do think the policy should be explicit about it.
I agree - when you start to stray into silencing speech, you should be explicit about what is silenced and why. Part of the problem with the announcement is that the policy (as described) is extremely broad and overly vague.
I do think the policy should be explicit about it. It doesn't help to say "We forbid X" if one side's prominent tactic is to redefine X as they see fit. By analogy, it is not enough to say "We forbid discussions about religious beliefs". One also needs to say "Theory of evolution is accepted here as true".