Fair Wisconsin On The So-Called Gay Marriage Ban

September 18, 2006

Fair Wisconsin has a series of videos up about the upcoming referendum on gay marriage in Wisconsin. I would vote no on it simply because I personally believe gay Americans should be able to marry their sweethearts just like everyone else can. But even beyond that, this so-called “ban on gay marriage” has far-reaching implications for all unmarried couples, straight or gay. You can watch all the Fair Wisconsin videos on this page.

My fellow Wisconsinites, I trust that you will vote no on this hateful, small-minded and mean-spirited referendum in November.


No comments yet

  1. The gay marriage ban will get “yes” votes from the hateful, small-minded and mean-spirited among your fellow Wisconsinites. How did they become hateful, small-minded and mean-spirited? They went to church and were convinced by a clergy of charlatans that two people of the same sex choosing a lifetime commitment to each other somehow threatens the rest of us. Win or lose, the number of votes it gets will be a revelation that could easily make you ill, should you stop to really think about it. But check the voting in the precincts on college campuses. Texas passed a nasty homophobic amendment like yours a year ago, but the vote in the precincts on campus at U. T. were against the homophobic amendment by margins as high as 90-10. The rightwingnuts may win this skirmish, but they should know this: their holy war will be lost. Very soon, in historical perspective at least, the game will continue but they won’t be dealt cards anymore.

  2. A lot of the reasons on web sites opposing the ban for non-gay couples living together, divorced couples etc. is a load crap. If you want the legal right to direct health care decisions for your siginificant other (gay or not), go to a lawyer and sign papers directing your wishes. Try limited Power of Attorney. The same is true for many of other arguements. There are already methods that will continue to exist whether this ban passes or not. Whether ones believes in gay marriage is irrelevant to the BS arguements concerning non-gays that are being thrown around by the opposition to this ammendment. Lets not confuse a “lifetime commitment to each other” with marriage, gay or not, a couple can have a satisifying loving releationship without marriage. there are many non-gay couples who live together and are not maaried and have the same legal status as gay couples.

  3. Must have hit the wrong key, the response was entered before I finished. Disregard the last sentence above .

    Bottom Line – gay marriage is an issue of financial and legal benefits, not of lifetime commitments of loving couples. The later can exist without legal recogntion of marriage.

  4. I am all for gay marriage. If a gay man wants to find a woman and marry her, he should be allowed. Same thing with a gay woman. However, you are asking us to redefine the terms that all the States had to agree to before being recognized as being “States” within this union of States that marriage was between “one man and one woman”. Please keep in mind that Utah has a church that has/had multiple members who promote the marriage between many men and many women. If you start to redefine terms that have established reasons for there basis, you open a gate that would be impossible to shut when opened. Remember that a man in Colorado tried to legally marry his horse as an extreme example. However, to legitimize any other union than 1 man for 1 woman, will soon find people promoting child/ adult marriage, multiple parties, people wanting marry animals, ect.

  5. Oh honestly! There are other countries in the world that allow same-sex couples to marry and nobody is marrying horses or children there. What truly irks me about this amendment is that it is an enourmous waste of money on the part of elected officials. We already have a ban on gay marriage in this state – why do we need another? We have actual, serious problems to solve, like a weakened economy, big debt, and out-of-control health care costs. Why isn’t our legislature attending to those issues?

  6. Apparently the law isn’t clear enough since some judges continue to allow challenges to this law on the basis of constitutionality. Whether you support the ammendment, this is the proper way to go about resolving this issue rather than having judges “legislate” law. The “open gate” reference by Peter is not as far off as you may think – go back and read the Supreme Court arguments and rulings in the 1800’s concerning poligamy and those in Utah who believed it should be legalized. In other parts of the world, poligamy is perfectly acceptable and common, especially in areas that do not believe in homosexuality. Based on the same arguements for gay marriage, an even stronger case can be made for poligamy. I am not advocating poligamy, I’m just stating that with the right momentum, a sympathic liberal advocate group and a fringe judge, you will again be hearing ammendments to define the number of people in a marriage. Not so far fetched an open gate!

    A side note: how do you think health care costs will be affected by legalized gay marriage when the coverage population increases along with the claims?

  7. 1. There are no empirical, compelling reasons for the government to prevent gay marriage. There are some interesting ones I can think of for them to prevent polygamy and polyandry, however. Children and animals are beneath discussion. Unless you’re Rick Santorum,

    2. They made the same arguments, Bill, when some folks had the radical notion that black people might want to marry white people. “What next!” they said. “It’s always been this way!” they insisted. Basically they had nothing rational and neither do the current nay-sayers.

    3. Health care costs should go down if we allow coverage for same-sex spouses. Timely and comprehensive care always costs less than waiting until you have emergencies and chronic diseases that could have been treated earlier if only the person had insurance.

  8. If I get around to getting my WI drivers license by then, you can count on my support!

  9. I will vote no, simply because I believe writing anything into a state constitution that is discriminatory in nature is just wrong, and un-American. The soup in this great melting pot should include the flavor of everyone who poses it no threat, and these people do not threaten me or my marriage, or America. Live long and prosper.

  10. I fully support this bill. Not just because I believe that gays should marry if they wish, but for other people who are living together. My mother and her boyfriend would be able to have more say in the event that something bad happens to them. They choose to not get married because they would loose their insurance benefits. This bill would still allow them to be able to make choices for each other. I urge everyone to support this bill and would gladly speak on tv about it.

  11. I think Scott is a little off base with his assumptions that health care costs will not go up. As a health care practitioner I can state with confidence that allowing non-married partners benefits linked to an insurance policy will drastically increase costs. The door is open to unregulated misuse of benefits, such as dating someone just for better dental coverage, or lower co-insurance. Who is to stop someone from being on multiple policies? There are all sorts of examples that can be made which demonstrate the possible damage to an already over-inflated health care system with regard to expense for services provided.
    Since when does taking a stance of disagreement with a life philosophy make someone hateful. I do not believe homosexuality is right, but I do not think living together in a heterosexual relationship before marriage is a good thing either. This does not mean I hate those parties involved in said activities. It does mean that I will teach my children what I believe is correct based on moral principle (this means the Bible) which is unchanging, unlike the fiat of human reason. This also means that I will vote for the “gay marriage ban” on November 7th based not only on moral principle, but on the damage it could cause to our health care system.

  12. Josh, you are correct– your beliefs, that adult homosexual relationships are wrong, are no more hateful than the beliefs that people of different races should not marry. Your beliefs are based on gender, theirs on race, and you share the same right to hold your non-hateful beliefs.

  13. I thought that only right-wing wackos resorted to name calling of those with whom they disagree….

    “The gay marriage ban will get “yes” votes from the hateful, small-minded and mean-spirited among your fellow Wisconsinites.”

    It’s nice to see such open-minded discussion on the issue. This type of mutual respect for the PERSON with whom one disagrees and a sticking to the ISSUES is what will foster community in the future.

    sarcasm sincere and intended

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: