MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 35.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Vote NO on the Marrige Amendment in November

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

How will you vote on the marriage amendment?

I will vote FOR it, I don't believe homosexuals deserve the same rights as me.
1
3%
I will vote AGAINST it, I believe homosexuals should at least be able to have civil unions or domestic partnerships in Wisconsin.
36
97%
I am UNDECIDED at this point, ask me later.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 37

Vote NO on the Marrige Amendment in November

Postby Hank_Venison » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:59 am

I will be voting AGAINST this amendment. It goes too far. What people need to understand, is the second sentence of this amendment wouldn't only ban same sex marriage, but also civil unions, & domestic partnerships. If you are opposed to same sex marriage, but think homosexual couples do deserve some sort of recognition, then you need to vote NO on this amendment. Wisconsin already has a statute on the books defining marriage as between a man & a woman.

Educate yourselves before voting:
www.fairwisconsin.com
Hank_Venison
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:32 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Jay Allen » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:17 am

I will be voting against the amendment, because I do not believe the government has any business in marriage.

If it were up to me, the government would get out or marriage licenses altogether, they would get out of the divorce process, and they would not care how many consenting adults lived in the same place.

People can agree to their own contracts without the government helping them.
Jay Allen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Fitchburg, WI

Postby AJ Love » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:27 am

For the life of me I cannot understand how any thinking, intelligent person could be against same-sex marriage.

* and no, "because the bible told me so" is not an intelligent reason...
AJ Love
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3618
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 10:11 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Postby Suoiragerg » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:37 am

I fail to see anyway that this ammendment will make the state a better place to live.

Jay's idea of the state staying out of marriage and divorce is interesting. Would divorces still be dealt with in civil case though? How would a couple seperate the stuff? Would everyone need a prenuptual? What about the kids? The kids stuff?

I can agree with the State not having the authority of saying what is a moral union but with out it I fear things would be even more messy.
Suoiragerg
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 1:47 pm

Postby Jay Allen » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:06 am

Suoiragerg wrote:Jay's idea of the state staying out of marriage and divorce is interesting. Would divorces still be dealt with in civil case though?
I would think that a marriage should be a private contract between whatever group of people chooses to enter in. As such, it would be a civil process.
Suoiragerg wrote:How would a couple seperate the stuff?
I would think the contract would determine that.
Suoiragerg wrote:Would everyone need a prenuptual?
I think the contract would amount to a prenuptial. If there is no contract, there is no marriage, and it is just like two people living together.
Suoiragerg wrote:What about the kids? The kids stuff?
Funny thing...kids are already handled through current statutes whether the parents are married or not. There is long precedent...not being married, in a governmental legal sense, does not have a bearing on parental rights.
Suoiragerg wrote:I can agree with the State not having the authority of saying what is a moral union but with out it I fear things would be even more messy.
I thought that for the longest time. But several years ago, I decided that fear of the lack of governmental regulation of who sleeps with whom is no reason for such regulation. Yes, I happily admit there would be chaos for a while, until such legal precedents were in place to govern things. But the current long-term nonsense that legislators are creating seems far more damaging than the short-term chaos that would ensue.
Jay Allen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Fitchburg, WI

Postby harrissimo » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:14 am

This amendment disgusts me. I'm voting NO!
harrissimo
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:33 am
Location: Spaight Street on the Isthmus of Madison

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:14 am

I guess it will all come down to:

1. How the question is worded on the ballot.

2. How well social conservative activist groups deflect the public�s attention away from the civil union part of the amendment. Essentially, that's the nasty part that will break the separation between church and state. Only then will tax breaks via right wing social engineering be rewarded through the church.

3. How much the extreme left continues to demand that marriage through the church be controlled and regulated by the government. This is also a breach between church and state. The way the left has framed and propagandized their desired regulation of the church, as necessary to protect gays from hate, might backfire. A lot of religious people are weary of these regulations, and frown upon them. They might choose the lesser of two evil breaches.

4. How TV advertising shapes the framing of the issue. The Media tends to portray this issue as gay people vs. the church in order to capitalize off of the sensationalism of the ordeal. This gives a substantial advantage to the pro amendment activists due to a fringe group vs. a well enamored institution.

From what I've heard on the streets outside of Madison (this city is concentrating on the "hate" frame, the rest of the state isn't very concerned with this view), Wisconsinites in general realize this would be the first time an amendment to the state constitution would be used to restrict rights instead of strengthening them. They realize this would be a bad president and give the government even more power over our daily lives than it deserves.

Me personally... I'm not going to vote for it because my girlfriend and I do not want to be "married" through a church. We also feel entitled to tax breaks for involving ourselves in right wing social engineering (as in the nuclear family aspects of American life), minus the church indoctrination parts of it. This amendment is currently written to discriminate against people like us, the non religious, who seek the tax benefits of "marriage". I have no choice but to vote no if we are to be recognized by the state as a merged couple. As far as I'm concerned, any and all tax breaks or prescribed social policy designed to stimulate or manipulate human behavior via progressive or social conservative value systems is contrary to the TRUE values of the open society. Social manipulation is coercive socialism.
pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby ms4denmark » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:59 pm

pulsewidth modulation wrote:I guess it will all come down to:

1. How the question is worded on the ballot.

The exact wording is:
"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

What I think you missed or didn't elaborate on enough in your first point is that the ban on "substantially similar" status also includes all non-married heterosexual couples. I retract that, those for this amendment left that second sentence as an open ended question to be resolved by the courts, something they absolutely don't want to happen in the case of the first sentence. On its face, this amendment is hypocritical. They don't want "activist" judges (another confusing, multiple meaning word) to define marriage, but they do want them to define what is too close to being marriage. There is a chance domestic partnerships or something like that could be ruled to not be "substantially similar", but that is only to be decided if the amendment passes.

2. How well social conservative activist groups deflect the public�s attention away from the civil union part of the amendment. Essentially, that's the nasty part that will break the separation between church and state. Only then will tax breaks via right wing social engineering be rewarded through the church.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Please elaborate.

3. How much the extreme left continues to demand that marriage through the church be controlled and regulated by the government.

Which 'left' groups think that the government should say what churches should or shouldn't do with respect to marriage? No one is saying that churches need to allow gay couples to marry. Well, maybe the fundamentalist right who wants voters to believe that. Isn't it a little shallow to hide behind your book of worship in order to pass legislation and shame members of the congregation into voting a certain way? Truthfully, this can be said for both sides of the argument.

4. How TV advertising shapes the framing of the issue. The Media tends to portray this issue as gay people vs. the church in order to capitalize off of the sensationalism of the ordeal.

Truer than anything else you've said. The media fell into the pro-amendment's pocket the minute they took their frame of "gay marriage" as though it's something so radically different. Try as those against the amendment might, they could never get something like "civil equality/marriage for gay and lesbian couples" to hold, most likely because it's not a buzzworthy phrase. Even progressive talk show hosts use their framed wording, where, conversely, they wouldn't be caught using a conservatively framed term like "death tax".

Those in favor of this amendment have done a good job of muddying the water on this issue. Can these people ever win an issue by being honest, or do they always have to confuse the issues? It would be interesting for someone like Ned or another person who tends to side with those on the for side of this issue to tell us what they are doing (not saying you do agree with them on this one, but c'mon, you have a better chance of being in contact with them that someone like me).

Are they giving out info on both sentences of the amendment? Do they inform folks they talk to that there are more heterosexual couples in what could be determined "substantially similar" than homosexual couples? Do they have a statement on why they want to make illegal non-marital statuses for heterosexual couples? I'd love to hear anything anyone knows about how the for side has presented the issue to individuals.
----------------
pixelated imagination
ms4denmark
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: sun prairie

Postby Chuck_Schick » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:23 pm

I'm not only voting no, I'm going 'mo.

Solidarity, bitches!
Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Marvell » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:32 pm

Chuck_Schick wrote:I'm not only voting no, I'm going 'mo.

Solidarity, bitches!


Way ahead of you, Chuck. I've already begun assembling my menagerie of barn yard animals, with which I intend to experience a complex marriage characterized by sordid nights of unspeakable sodomistic bliss.

Thank you, liberals! You're making all my ungulate-schtupping dreams become real!!!
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6969
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby snoqueen » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:34 pm

I agree with Jay on the government staying out of personal relationships. If in 2006 out of the clear blue sky someone suddenly dreamed up the idea the government got to license your personal relationships, people would scream bloody murder. This is a vestigial government area of legislation that serves no modern purpose, a leftover from old European governments with state religions, or religions functioning as governments.

I got a pamphlet on my doorstep last week from some pro-amendment organization -- I can't tell you the name any more because it went in the recycling already. It was reasonably literate and printed neatly, not somebody's home-computer hack job. Where's my pamphlet from the anti-amendment folks? We're going to need some organization to beat this stupid thing. I think it can be done, largely because the wording is so extreme it could turn some marginal voters off.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Postby MotorPrimitives » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:40 pm

I'm voting NO!

My long answer is at ourblog.

For me it comes down to fairness and I DO believe that the people planning to vote for it (that have actually read the proposed wording) are acting hatefully.

Why should I get government sanctioned monetary perks just 'cause I'm "hitched under God" and have the government papers to prove it. Some of my best friends can't get those government papers even though they've declared thier love and commitment to each other with the same gusto that I did, lo those many years ago.

BTW-This is my personal opinion and the rest of the band can speak for themselves if they wish (they just don't tend to post on our blog as much as I do). -Pam
Last edited by MotorPrimitives on Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MotorPrimitives
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:47 am
Location: Madison

Postby Aubrey McFate » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:41 pm

pulsewidth modulation wrote:They realize this would be a bad president....

James Buchanan? Warren G. Harding?

Just kidding.
Aubrey McFate
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:36 pm

Postby Hank_Venison » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:02 am

Do you think it's safe to assume the one person who voted "FOR" would be Ned?
Hank_Venison
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:32 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Chuck_Schick » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:19 am

Hank_Venison wrote:Do you think it's safe to assume the one person who voted "FOR" would be Ned?

Well, it's a short list of candidates, for sure. I mean, no offense, Hank. I appreciate your advocacy and all, but posing this question on the DPF is sort of like asking "Who wants cake?" at fat camp.
Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Next

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar