h1

No On The Marriage Amendment

October 26, 2006

Fred, who is for the amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions, writes

If two gay people wish to enter into a contractual relationship that somehow mimics marriage, fine. Just call it something other than marriage.

The problem is that the amendment expressly forbids exactly what Fred is suggesting that gay people do. If, as the amendment reads, “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state,” how are gay people supposed to, as Fred suggests, “enter into a legal contract that somehow mimics marriage”?

Make no mistake. Even if you are against gay marriage you should vote no on the amendment because it goes to far and tries to curtail efforts of gay people to find another legal status for themselves with which they can inherit, share insurance, power of attorney and any of the hundreds of other legal rights of married couples.

I fear this amendment will pass. What a shame.

Advertisements

No comments yet

  1. Not on my watch it won’t!

    Take heart Scott I for one have a great deal of faith that the amendment will not be passed.


  2. I hope you are right.


  3. I hope you are right and ‘Drop Dead Fred’ is as wrong as he is misguided. However, I think the Hate Ammendment is going to pass. I think the moderates unfortunately, don’t really understand what this is all about.


  4. Nice try to confuse people with the “Vote No” commercial and “nothing will change”. May you will confuse some of the people some of the time, but this ammendment will pass, not because people hate gays, but because they believe marriage is between a man a woman. The hate and homophob talk is not working because these same people know it’s not true. The vote NO commercial is just a stall tatic to stop the ammendment so challenges to laws prohibiting gay marriage can be filed after the election. The ammendment would prevent these challenges. The recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling has recharged the YES vote so it won’t happen in Wisconsin.


  5. I’m sorry, I don’t understand waht you think I’m trying to “confuse” people with. I’m merely pointing out that the amendment does more than just ban gay marriage. And even some people who purport to be for it, like Fred, don’t seem to fully understand that.

    Tell me why this proposition is better than one which simply said “Wisconsin will neither marry, nor recognize marriages of, same-sex couples”? Why is it better that it also bans “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage”?


  6. Wisconsin’s marriage laws have survived court challenges. And WI’s Supreme Court is pretty liberal, as far as state Supreme Courts go, and they STILL haven’t found a right to same-sex marriage in this state.

    Voting no on the amendment keeps these court precedents.

    I agree with Scott — I don’t know why it’s so important to “protect marriage” right this second that people are willing to throw civil unions and domestic partnerships and whatever else out with it. Plain-ole heterosexual marriage isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.


  7. “heterosexual marriage isn’t going anywhere anytime soon”

    There is an ACLU law suite right now challenging WI State Law banning equal employment benefits for gay and lesbian domestic partnerships. Check the link http://www.aclu-wi.org/wisconsin/sexual_orientation/helgeland_faq.shtml

    If the ammendment fails, the challenges supporting gay marriages will follow.


  8. Four quick points for your thoughts:

    1. Same-sex families always deny children either their mother or father.
    2. Same-sex family is a vast, untested social experiment with children.
    3. Where does it stop? How do we say “no” to group marriage?
    4. Schools will be forced to teach that the homosexual family is normal. Churches will be legally pressured to perform same-sex ceremonies.

    Marriage Is Always About the Next Generation. A loving and compassionate society never intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families, which is exactly what every same-sex home does. The same-sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults. No child development theory says children need two parents of the same gender, but rather that children need their mothers and fathers.

    America has raised millions of children in fatherless families for three decades and that experiment was a stunning failure by every measure! We know how damaging it is to raise children in intentionally fatherless families. Let’s not create more child-suffering to satisfy adult desire.
    Thousands of published social science, psychological and medical studies show that children living in fatherless families, on average, suffer dramatically in every important measure of well-being. These children suffer from much higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational failure, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, as well as physical and sexual abuse. Children living apart from both biological parents are eight times more likely to die of maltreatment than children living with their mother and father.

    How Your Same-sex Family Will Harm My Family

    * If this were just about your family, there would be no real danger. But same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for you alone, but rather demanding me — and all of us — to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage.
    * Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.
    * And I will never allow my (grand) children to be taught that their gender doesn’t matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone’s in this world.


  9. 1. Same-sex families always deny children either their mother or father.

    Same-sex couples exist, my friend. They are raising children every day. Have been for years. The question isn’t whether we allow it, but whether our public policies will make their lives more or less secure. I say make them more secure.

    2. Same-sex family is a vast, untested social experiment with children.

    See my comment above.

    3. Where does it stop? How do we say “no” to group marriage?

    The slippery slope is never a great argument. Besides, why are you punishing gay couples for your fears about polygamous people?

    4. Schools will be forced to teach that the homosexual family is normal.

    School curriculum may come to recognize that homosexual families exist, yes. I have no problem with this, even if you do.

    Churches will be legally pressured to perform same-sex ceremonies.

    If you think this is even remotely possible in America, you’re on crack. I can’t think of a nicer way to say it, but it’s just ludicrous. The only pressure churches will recieve to perform these ceremonies is from its own membership. And that’s your problem, not mine.

    Your stats on raising children in families without fathers or without mothers (or both) have pretty much zero to do with same-sex couples. The problems you’re tracking with such stats have nothing to do with gay people or any two-parent families at all.

    same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for you alone, but rather demanding me — and all of us — to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage.

    Granting gay couples the right to have civil unions or legal domestic partnerships doesn’t do anything to your “understanding of marriage,” nor can I see why I should care if it does. The government doesn’t exist to protect your precious “understanding.”

    Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.

    Your “therefore” doesn’t follow.

    And I will never allow my (grand) children to be taught that their gender doesn’t matter for the family.

    Your grandchildren will very likely be ashamed of your backwardness in the same way that George Wallace’s grandchildren are ashamed of his historic stance on integration.



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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: