Final (Hopefully) Comments on the Gay Marriage Amendment
If we're all so sick to death over hearing about "the amendment," then why are we still talking about it?
This seems such an odd topic to be generating so much discussion. Don't we all know what our opinions are on gay marriage?
At the risk of becoming too analytical on an otherwise useless blog, I think that the reason this debate has carried on the way it has is because it was designed to do so. First, there is the wording of the amendment and its two much talked about, seemingly counter-productive sentences. Sentence one states that marriage shall be defined as a union between one man and one woman. Sentence two states that Wisconsin shall not recognize civil unions or similar status granted to couples in other states. Leaving politics out of it, these two sentences make perfect sense together. They represent a point of view that believes marriage is a sacred union and gay couples are not to be treated the same as heterosexual couples. So why did I say that they are "seemingly counter-productive?"
In order for this referendum to pass, it must have popular support. By adding sentence #2, the field of potential support is narrowed from those who want to guard the word "marriage" to those who also oppose civil unions for gays. I don't know how much this narrows the voting pool, but I have a feeling its a considerable percentage. The people who wrote this amendment must have known this, so how did they expect it to pass? Or, did they?
I think the amendment was expected to pass in this election. It was originally referred to as a defense of marriage bill to score political points with voters who oppose "gay marriage" but don't oppose civil unions, or perhaps to follow on the coat tails of a federal bill of the same name. Somewhere, that nickname became offensive or people got lazy. We started calling it the gay marriage amendment. But wait, this bill opposes gay marriage!!! Isn't it confusing to call it "the gay marriage amendment?"
You're darn right it's confusing! That's why we're still talking about it. We're all wondering whether we should vote YES, NO, or Pat Buchanan. It leaves me wondering whether calling this the "gay marriage amendment" will cause supporters of civil unions and/or gay marriage to vote YES, and opponents to vote NO. I have to assume some people will vote opposite of the way they think they're voting.
A recent add from the "NO" side is sickeningly misleading on the issue when it explains that voting NO will leave the law exactly as it is, then it concludes with the phrase "No gay marriage." It's an obvious attempt to cloud the issue and score votes from the other side. Which side is going to benefit most from the confusion? It's probably the side that had the least support to begin with, but I can't say which one that was because we've moved so far beyond the issue into political posturing.
Read this bill carefully when you vote. I'll try to explain your choices to you, so that you can go to the poll (hopefully) informed on the subject. I don't care which way you vote, so long as you vote for the side you believe in!
Voting NO: Preserves the status quo. It doesn't ban gay marriage or civil unions and it doesn't create them either. You're not voting NO to gay marriage. Of course, a NO vote will be viewed as a huge victory for gay rights, regardless of the fact that it changes nothing.
Voting YES: Prohibits gay marriage AND civil unions. Supporters of the amendment say voting NO leaves us subject to the whims of activist judges in this, and other, states. They see the amendment as a way to protect the state from the potential impact of decisions made outside the legislature.
I have sympathy for both sides of this debate. I definitely don't want our state to be subjected to laws and financial burdens that aren't created here, by our elected representatives. I believe that many courts have overstepped their bounds in recent history and they ought to be dealt with.
On the other hand, I think that committed same-sex couples deserve all the joy and heartbreak that heterosexual couples are allowed. Gays who love each other and want to be united as a family unit should be allowed to do so. They should also be forced to split their possessions 50/50, just like the rest of us, if they take the plunge and mess it up. I hope that the majority of us have moved beyond thinking that homosexuality is a choice, and we're willing to accept or ignore gay couples that want to be together permanently.
I'm voting NO. Regardless of the outcome of this election, this debate could still end up in court. In a previous post I challenged the supporters of this bill to write law that protects this state against activist courts on all issues, not just this one. I would vote in favor of the first sentence in this bill because it's not the issue. The word "marriage" is coveted by the gay activists and guarded by the "religious right." I say to heck with the activists, most homosexuals just want fair treatment. They don't need the word to get it and we ought to take it out of the argument.
I'm voting NO because I believe the second part of the bill is a step in the wrong direction. Voting NO leaves us where we are, voting YES goes the opposite way I think we should go and all but slams the door. That pretty much decides it for me, doesn't it? So, I'm voting NO and telling the legislature to go back to the drawing board. I suggest that they start drafting a plan for same sex benefits instead. If Wisconsin defines a civil union by law, we'll have much less to fear from the courts.
This seems such an odd topic to be generating so much discussion. Don't we all know what our opinions are on gay marriage?
At the risk of becoming too analytical on an otherwise useless blog, I think that the reason this debate has carried on the way it has is because it was designed to do so. First, there is the wording of the amendment and its two much talked about, seemingly counter-productive sentences. Sentence one states that marriage shall be defined as a union between one man and one woman. Sentence two states that Wisconsin shall not recognize civil unions or similar status granted to couples in other states. Leaving politics out of it, these two sentences make perfect sense together. They represent a point of view that believes marriage is a sacred union and gay couples are not to be treated the same as heterosexual couples. So why did I say that they are "seemingly counter-productive?"
In order for this referendum to pass, it must have popular support. By adding sentence #2, the field of potential support is narrowed from those who want to guard the word "marriage" to those who also oppose civil unions for gays. I don't know how much this narrows the voting pool, but I have a feeling its a considerable percentage. The people who wrote this amendment must have known this, so how did they expect it to pass? Or, did they?
I think the amendment was expected to pass in this election. It was originally referred to as a defense of marriage bill to score political points with voters who oppose "gay marriage" but don't oppose civil unions, or perhaps to follow on the coat tails of a federal bill of the same name. Somewhere, that nickname became offensive or people got lazy. We started calling it the gay marriage amendment. But wait, this bill opposes gay marriage!!! Isn't it confusing to call it "the gay marriage amendment?"
You're darn right it's confusing! That's why we're still talking about it. We're all wondering whether we should vote YES, NO, or Pat Buchanan. It leaves me wondering whether calling this the "gay marriage amendment" will cause supporters of civil unions and/or gay marriage to vote YES, and opponents to vote NO. I have to assume some people will vote opposite of the way they think they're voting.
A recent add from the "NO" side is sickeningly misleading on the issue when it explains that voting NO will leave the law exactly as it is, then it concludes with the phrase "No gay marriage." It's an obvious attempt to cloud the issue and score votes from the other side. Which side is going to benefit most from the confusion? It's probably the side that had the least support to begin with, but I can't say which one that was because we've moved so far beyond the issue into political posturing.
Read this bill carefully when you vote. I'll try to explain your choices to you, so that you can go to the poll (hopefully) informed on the subject. I don't care which way you vote, so long as you vote for the side you believe in!
Voting NO: Preserves the status quo. It doesn't ban gay marriage or civil unions and it doesn't create them either. You're not voting NO to gay marriage. Of course, a NO vote will be viewed as a huge victory for gay rights, regardless of the fact that it changes nothing.
Voting YES: Prohibits gay marriage AND civil unions. Supporters of the amendment say voting NO leaves us subject to the whims of activist judges in this, and other, states. They see the amendment as a way to protect the state from the potential impact of decisions made outside the legislature.
I have sympathy for both sides of this debate. I definitely don't want our state to be subjected to laws and financial burdens that aren't created here, by our elected representatives. I believe that many courts have overstepped their bounds in recent history and they ought to be dealt with.
On the other hand, I think that committed same-sex couples deserve all the joy and heartbreak that heterosexual couples are allowed. Gays who love each other and want to be united as a family unit should be allowed to do so. They should also be forced to split their possessions 50/50, just like the rest of us, if they take the plunge and mess it up. I hope that the majority of us have moved beyond thinking that homosexuality is a choice, and we're willing to accept or ignore gay couples that want to be together permanently.
I'm voting NO. Regardless of the outcome of this election, this debate could still end up in court. In a previous post I challenged the supporters of this bill to write law that protects this state against activist courts on all issues, not just this one. I would vote in favor of the first sentence in this bill because it's not the issue. The word "marriage" is coveted by the gay activists and guarded by the "religious right." I say to heck with the activists, most homosexuals just want fair treatment. They don't need the word to get it and we ought to take it out of the argument.
I'm voting NO because I believe the second part of the bill is a step in the wrong direction. Voting NO leaves us where we are, voting YES goes the opposite way I think we should go and all but slams the door. That pretty much decides it for me, doesn't it? So, I'm voting NO and telling the legislature to go back to the drawing board. I suggest that they start drafting a plan for same sex benefits instead. If Wisconsin defines a civil union by law, we'll have much less to fear from the courts.
2 Amendments:
Aaron, you stated: "most homosexuals just want fair treatment."
I don't think that's true at all. I truly believe they will continue to put pressure on society until we APPROVE of them and what they do, and that includes in the churches. Once it becomes law, churches will have to abide or lose their tax status. There is no doubt in my mind that is the goal.
However, you presented the argument very well. I personally have no problem with "civil unions" even though most of the rights to distribute things in a 50/50 way (as you stated) can already be done by wills and contracts and Powers of Attorney and naming people as executors and beneficiaries.
In fact, whoever wrote this amendment made a big mistake because giving them "civil unions" would put an end to the agitation for at least a while, and the anti-gay marriage side can then also claim they will go no further and mean it as far as "marriage" is concerned.
The way it is now written the agitation for gay marriage will only continue and probably be decided by some activist judge at some time, without the consent of the people, even if this becomes part of the constitution of Wisc, because the pressures are just so strong.
So under the circumstances, I would have to agree with you that the legislature needs to go back to the drawing board and separate everything out: activist judges, civil unions and marriage. Thanks for a very clear explanation, even though I'm not a resident of Wisconsin and won't be voting on this.
What you're proposing that the legislators do means they would eventually also need to draft a plan for heterosexual unmarried couples also.I don't believe that voting Yes bans the civil unions, it just defines that it would not be recognized on the same level as traditional marriage.I believe same-sex couples can draw up legal agreements for some of their purposes, but how can insurance companies keep paying benefits for people in all kinds of "relationships"?? Would they have to be in a committed relationship for 6 months, 1 year??
I voted Yes and I think the majority of people out there still believe in the traditional institution of marriage and marriage vows/commitment. I believe people choose to be homosexual and why would we reward unacceptable behavior that is dangerous physically and emotionally? I've heard of many homosexuals changing with support and guidance of others who have gone through it and turned their lives around.It's very possible.I guess you have to believe there is sin in the world, and that there is hope to turn people around if they want the help.I for one will continue to share the hope with all who wish to change.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home