Election 2006 Through the Eyes of Bloggers: The Gay Marriage Amendment

Current | Advocacy

attackgay110606.JPGBelow are entries I pulled from the last four days concerning Wisconsin's Gay Marriage Amendment which will be on the November 7 ballot. The amendment reads:

Quote:
"Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"

So what are the two sides saying about it with the election mere days away? (for the record, the majority of Dane101 regular contributors are against the amendment, not only because of the discrimination it will reinforce in our Constitution, but also because of the second line that will hurt anyone - straight or not - who simply desires to exist in a civil union and not be married)

Some great reading by clicking read more:

Badger Blogger (corection: I had written that there were at least five Badger Blogs out there. I was incorrect) wants you to vote yes because the no voters are trying to deceive you:

Quote:
“they are trying to confuse people into voting no by saying that nothing will change. The fact is, that if this amendment is defeated, actions like we just seen in New Jersey will begin in Wisconsin, where four Supreme Court Justices will decide what the law should be in Wisconsin, not the voters or our elected representatives.”

Lesbian with a Luger argues:

Quote:
“Not only would it ban marriages and civil unions, but it would also take away wills, domestic partnerships, powers of attorneys, etc.... and not just from gay people either. Also from unmarried straight people. It even takes away our right to *ask* or *petition* the government for our rights.”

Modern Commentaries suggests that once gay marriage is passed gay people will start killing Christians because gays killing Chritians would never be considered a hate crime:

Quote:
“As we saw in MA, same-sex couples sued Catholic Charities for the right to adopt. In spite of Catholic Charities objections, which - in a sane world, would be protected under the First Amendment. So Catholic Charities shut down its adoption program rather than sell its faith short.

It would not surprise me at all to see, in the next 5-10 years, states like MA and NJ go the way of Canada. Where speaking objectionably about gay marriage or homosexual behavior is punishable by a hate crime. Even for religious persons. So much for the fair and equal treatment clause, huh? Because, as Mark Shea often says: You. Must. Enthusiastically. Approve. Anything less will be met with full force and consequence.

Take, for example, the case of Mary Stachowicz. A mother of four, and devoted Catholic, Stachowicz was brutally murdered by 23-year-old Nicholas Gutierrez. Gutierrez's defense team is using the "she had it coming" defense, arguing that Stachowicz's objections to Gutierrez's gay lifestyle caused him to snap and stab her (so many times and with such force the blade of the hunting knife bent), strangle her, rape and beat her before stuffing her body under the floorboards in his apartment.”

The Independent Conservative also thinks “the homos” are trying to deceive you:

Quote:
“This amendment is good because it makes sure that a judge can't make the decision that about 4 million Wisconsinites don't want to make. The 1 million or so people who don't want to ban gay marriage know they are on the losing end of the deal. So they have to lie and deceive to get their way.”

The View From Now points out the second sentence that ban supporters always ignore:

Quote:
“Would the referendum on the ballot still have an effect? YES. Why? Because of the sentence, which reads a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. This is definitely NOT the law right now, nor should it be - the second part effects all couples seeking a civil union (it's really vague language, but that's what everyone is assuming it means) will not be able to do so, whether they're gay or straight.

The ban is being hyped up by conservatives as only being related to gay marriage (even though it's already a statute) to fire up what they assume to be their uninformed base, and get them to vote."

Carrie documents on Bad Mama the experience of wearing a Fair Wisconsin pin:

Quote:
“One man saw me and smiled, sticking out his arm so I could see he was wearing the same button. His friend then pulled out his rainbow pendant, and said, "thank you". Over the weekend, I was in the store buying Peanut's costume when two young boys were horsing around, and one called the other a faggot. As I turned the corner to the aisle they were leaving, there were two women there, wearing rainbow pins, and looking tense. They saw my pin, and visibly relaxed, and we all shook our heads over the future felons. Today, while eating lunch at the bagel shop, one of the counter clerks walked over to my table and quietly said, I see you are wearing a FAIR Wisconsin button, are you planning to volunteer? Because we need you.”
Nick Schweitzer supports Mark Green for Governor, but not the marriage amendment, he writes:
Quote:
“Mark Green does oppose gay marriage, which I support, but that doesn't bother me a lot. Gay marriage is one of those things, at least in my opinion, that a lot of people get bent out of shape about, but doesn't really affect them. So while I disagree with him, it's not nearly enough to sway me against him. I suppose if I were gay it would be a different story.”
Nick also pointed out after I posted this that he wrote extensively about the issue in this entry: How I'm Voting: No on the Gay Marriage Amendment. He isn't kidding when he says "extensively." Great incite, highly recommended.

Griper Blade look at Madison's Bishop Robert Morlino who is

Quote:
“at odds with his flock. He stands against embryonic stem cell research and for the 'gay marriage' ban, all the while completely ignoring campaign laws.”
Texas Hold 'Em Blogger ties the “outing” of the alleged meth user and alleged closeted homosexual Rev. Ted Haggard (and leader of the National Association of Evangelicals) to the agenda of the “Rainbow Mafia.” He writes:
Quote:
“This is part of an orchestrated effort by the Ranbow Mafia to destroy the credibility of anyone who opposes them as well as another desperate attempt to suppress the vote of the opponents of homosexual marriage, including Wisconsin.”
Conservative Wisconsin Turtle Lover thinks the “liberal media” is telling conservatives to stay home (I need to get one of those TVs that all of the conservatives seem to have that only shows liberal media – I wonder if BestBuy sells those? They have blue and yellow in their color scheme – blue for liberal and yellow for cut and runners...right?):
Quote:
“The Democrats will legalize Gay Marriage, but that's ok because Republicans aren't interested in the definition of marriage.”

On The BottomLine takes a look at how people who support civil unions may inadvertently vote for the ban and against them:

Quote:
“It is always striking to me the number of individuals who believe that homosexuals can already go to the courthouse and get ‘unionized’ and that this entire debate is over the issue of marriage in churches. Public opinion polls increasingly show the public approving of gay and lesbians having the right to have equal protections and opportunities, calling it something other than marriage. (i.e. civil unions).”
Finito la Commedia suggests the ban is really about hating homosexuals and pulls these quotes from the Family Research Institute's Julaine Appling:
Quote:
“I think we’ve been extremely tolerant in allowing [homosexuals] to live wherever they choose.”

- Julaine Appling, Isthmus, September 9, 2005 [a Madison, Wisconsin alternative daily which does not take a position against the amendment]

“Society needs to control sexual activity,” she said. “Anytime that you have rampant sexual activity, with no prescriptions on it, society is headed for trouble.”

-Julaine Appling, Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, “Decision 2006: Wisconsin votes on Same-Sex Marriage,” KARE 11, October 23, 2006Does that represent your

Musings, a Christian blogger is voting “no”:

Quote:
"We have a tendency, we humans, to get a little crazy about this stuff. We want to find someone to scapegoat, some reason for the shifting social sands we stand on that frighten us to death. It's much easier to create devils and demons out of innocent people than it is to look at our own confusion and fear. Getting all excited about truly unimportant issues (and I don't believe that "gay marriage" will be the undoing of America; late-night partying, Packer games and 24-hour-Walmarts keep more people out of church and synagogue than gays do) is one way of keeping our attention away from serious stuff (like people dying in Iraq, or children starving in Darfur.) Ask yourself if this will REALLY have an impact on your day-to-day life. I'm guessing not.

Doesn't bother me, either."

Reason Magazine explains why gay marriage isn't the end of the world! Don't confuse the children!:
Quote:
“Is the point that kids are so stupid that gay marriages will make them forget (or never learn) the differences between big boys and big girls? Is it that gay marriage will cause a physiological chain reaction transmogrifying American adults into hermaphrodites? It can't be that legal gay marriage is going to make kids grow up in a world where heterosexual relationships become incomprensible; if that was the case, the ad makers would have taken their cameras to Massachusetts and just started filming the atrocities. Unless... maybe there aren't any atrocities?”
Wigderson Library and Pub thinks the reason Elton John is against the marriage ban and donating money is because he wants revenge for being booed a couple years back at the Harley Anniversary:
Quote:
“Do you think this Elton John's way of getting revenge on Wisconsin for the poor reception he got at the Harley anniversary party?”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So where are all of these

So where are all of these other Badger Blogger blogs? I'll link to them.

Badger Blogs

I've actually written far

I've actually written far more extensively on this issue in this post if you're interested. But thanks for the link.

Noted

Noted and updated. Thank you!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment



The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


*

  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dd><a> <b> <dl> <dt> <i> <u> <ul><br><p> <div> <u> <object> <strike>
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text, URLs will be automatically converted to links
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use [inline:xx] tags to display uploaded files or images inline.