Saturday, November 11, 2006


On Wednesday I read a quote in the paper from some guy up near Green Bay who said he voted for the gay marriage amendment, because he believed marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman. He said he didn't have a problem with allowing civil unions, just not actual "marriage". I can't find the article online anymore, but what he said is burned into my brain, because it shows me what the problem really is with the people in this state. It isn't that they're homophobic, it's that they are illiterate:

"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?"

Not content to just mess with the families of people whose sexual practices she doesn't approve of (has anyone ever asked her if she's into fisting? Because I don't approve of that), the director of the main group supporting the ban has decided to move on to messing with straight people :

"What was highlighted in this campaign is that marriage is indeed under attack and no-fault divorce is one of those attacks," Julaine Appling, CEO of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin and president of the "Vote Yes for Marriage" campaign, said Tuesday night.

Appling said the Family Research Institute, which led the fight for the same-sex marriage ban, would "judiciously" examine Wisconsin's no-fault divorce law and eventually approach legislators about introducing changes. Under the law, spouses can request termination of the marriage without having to prove marital misconduct. Appling said she could foresee proposing a longer waiting period for divorces and implementing required premarital counseling.

There is good news. With the state Senate now controlled by Democrats, one of them is introducing an amendment to the amendment.

Erpenbach said Friday his proposal would honor the ban on gay marriages, but rectify potential problems in the second sentence of the referendum, which he said stripped legal rights from straight and same-sex unmarried couples. Those protections include the right to receive domestic partner benefits and have legally binding contracts, including wills.

...Erpenbach said he does not understand how the state can expect same-sex couples to continue paying taxes and being lawful citizens when they are denied protections and benefits afforded to married couples.

He said supporters of the gay marriage amendment always claimed that they did not intend to discriminate against gay couples, just protect the institution of marriage.

"If that's not their intention to discriminate, let's make sure it's in the constitution," Erpenbach said.

He also said civil unions are separate from marriage, which he described as more of a religious institution.

"The state is supposed to be separate from the eyes of any God," he said. If supporters of the amendment were "going after civil unions, they should have said so."

So now Ed from Green Bay can get beind this, right?

1 comment:

Carlos said...

Because I have an unbounded (and often confirmed) faith in the hypocrisy of politically ambitious "religious" types, I have to wonder about Ms. Appling's personal life.

Frevny nssnvef jvgu zneevrq cnfgbef be fjvat pyhof, is my guess. (ROT-13 so you don't get even weirder hits than you do already.)

Odd how these groups consistently attract worse people than average. Much worse.