No question about it, Wisconsin is a battleground state.
The razor-thin results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections are testament to that.
With the Marriage Amendment on the ballot, advocacy groups on both sides of the issue are setting their sights on Wisconsin.
People around the country are hoping to score a victory for gay marriage in Wisconsin.
For instance, check out this blog, Towleroad.
New York-based Queerty is following the debate in Wisconsin.
Their reaction to the pro-amendment ad that uses children:
Wisc. Marriage Ban Ad Makes Us Sick
No, Seriously, We Just Barfed Rainbow Chunks
Personally, I don't like that ad. I get squeamish when it comes to exploiting children for political purposes.
Nevertheless, it's important to note that Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment is being viewed by activists around the country as much more than a local matter.
Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment is receiving international attention as well.
Read UK-based PinkNews.
Here's another UK site that's calling attention to Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment, 24dash.
I've been on the fence about this amendment from the moment I first read it.
Is it really necessary to amend the state constitution?
Does the amendment foster bigotry?
In my mind, the activities of the "Vote No" crowd and their intentionally confusing and deceptive ads have actually clarified things.
These pro-gay marriage groups have successfully redefined the issue for me.
I no longer think of it as a question of whether or not amending the state's constitution is appropriate in this case.
Clearly, the question has become whether or not you consider MARRIAGE to be between one man and one woman.
That is how I define MARRIAGE.
Two more important points influencing my decision:
First, I believe that the amendment will NOT constitutionalize discrimination.
Second, I want to prevent activist judges from legislating from the bench and effectively silencing the voices of the electorate.
Therefore, I will vote YES for Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment.
8 comments:
Haven't you been paying attention, gay marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin. This just announces to the world that Wisconsin discriminates, thank you Republicans.
It is clearly about bigotry (well using bigotry for political purposes), as gay marriage in Wisconsin is already illegal. The only point to even have it on the ballot is to energize the anti-gay crowd to get out and vote Republican. It is the worst kind of politics, the politics of hate.
Mary,
When you say you were on the fence about the issue, I automatically gave you credit for thinking about this on your own and not just blindly following party lines. I think it would be unwise, though, to let a few ads change the way you feel about the issue. Clearly the "No" ads are trying to mislead the public. But those affected by an amendment are not the ones doing the ads. It's similar to some of the anti- Dr. Millionaire ads that are also clearly misleading (specifically the pedophile and rapist ads) the public. That shouldn't automatically make you against John Gard, should it?
I do think you are wrong about two important things though...
1) This is clearly discrimination. The question is whether or not it is a good form of discriminate, both against gays and civil unions.
2) New Jersey is not a case of "activist judges". It is simply our constitutional republic working the way it is intended. The judges correctly ruled that not allowing homosexual marriages is discriminatory. They then ruled that there is no good reason for the discrimination. It is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Those arguing the "activist" angle don't understand civics.
I just want to know - what non-bigoted reasons could we have for not allowing gays to marry? What is it that we are protecting?
Mary, funny you should mention activist judges. Sandra Day O'Connor spoke on attacks against judges as threatening the "independence of the judicial system"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712
Uly,
When are you planning on making up your mind? It's time to decide.
Is MARRIAGE between one man and one woman, or is it open for redefinition?
Dave said: "It is the worst kind of politics, the politics of hate."
No.
Even worse than the politics of hate is the politics of deception.
Advocates of gay marriage have intentionally sought to plant confusion in the minds of voters. They have been shamelessly deceptive in their ads. Why? Because they know that voters would reject gay marriage in a landslide.
Wisconsin bishops have spelled out their position on the amendment in a letter.
A question:
Are you suggesting that Wisconsin Catholic bishops practice the politics of hate?
Ummm who put the issue on the ballot was it the Wisconsin Catholic bishops? NO It was the Republican party who's forcing this issue. i.e. the politics of hate. Deny it all you want but it is clearly "dirty pool".
Ulysses> I hear what you're saying, i.e. you may not be of the anti-gay crowd, but the focus of this bill was to get them to the polls. Though I'd say didn't we have segregation? "Separate but equal?". hmmm howd that work?
Ulysses,
You are correct; I used the term "marriage" differently than they did.
But they did rule that discriminating same-sex relationships is unconstitutional.
From they syllabus - "Other than sustaining the traditional definition of marriage, which is not implicated in this discussion, the State has not articulated any legitimate public need for depriving committed same-sex couples of the host of benefits and privileges that are afforded to married heterosexual couples."
And I disagree with you about it not being a matter for the courts. An important job of the courts is to make sure the rights given in the constitution are not trumped by any statute. In this case, does Article 1, Par. 1 of the NJ constitution bar the statute in question.
Post a Comment