November
2006
The Most Important Vote to Cast Today Is ‘NO’
"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?"
We’ve all seen the ad. Face of an all-American blonde, blue-eyed, curly-haired boy appears on your TV screen. He gazes up at the camera in an innocent close-up. “If daddy marries another man,” the kid asks, “Who’d be my mom?” Another kid comes on, this one a bit shorter and with brown hair. “I’m confused,” this second kid says, also gazing up at the camera, trying to look as confused as the other kid. But this kid’s a little younger and a smile sneaks onto his face. After all, this is just a commercial.
Those kids, my 14-year-old daughter says, are really too young to know what they’re talking about. In fact, she says, many adults don’t quite get this “Defense of Marriage” thing on the ballot today.
My daughter spent some time this summer volunteering with Fair Wisconsin, knocking on doors, working to help people understand what the marriage amendment is all about, hoping to persuade them that a 'No' vote is the right thing to do. Voting 'No' vote means that civil unions would still be legal in Wisconsin and that domestic partners would be able to share health care and other benefits such as pensions. 'No' means they would not be denied the right to make critical health care decisions for their loved ones.
She says it’s important that life partners have these basic things because the U.S. Constitution says it’s against the law to deny them to people. If the couple happens to be gay, they’re out of luck if the referendum passes. Gay couples cannot get married under Wisconsin law. The referendum doesn’t change this, leaving gay couples only one option if they want to care for their life partners – not be gay. The referendum, she says, is just wrong.
But based on conversations she had at the doors, a lot of people are just as confused as the kids in the ad. In St. Francis, she found more than a few people at the doors who said, “I’m against gay marriage, I’m voting 'No.'”
“People hear the words 'gay marriage' and automatically, the first thing that they think is, 'No,'" my daughter says.
The people in those St. Francis houses were obviously missing something. Apparently they didn’t realize that marriage was under attack. They're as confused as the kids in that ad we've all seen.
The guy who wrote the marriage amendment, state Rep. Mark Gundrum (R – New Berlin), says all that voters have to do is read the referendum on the ballot and the confusion will end at the polls. That might be wishful thinking.
“I’ve read the sheet a million times but it seems no matter how many times I read it, it’s still not clear,” she adds. “The wording is too vague and if you don’t read it carefully, it could be expressed for either ‘No’ or ‘Yes.’ It kind of makes you not want to vote on it at all.”
'No' is what the law in Wisconsin already says about gay couples getting married. 'No' is what you vote when politicians propose senseless laws like the marriage amendment. 'No' is what you say to politicians who create problems where none existed, like the idea of the courts making gay marriage legal in Wisconsin.
There's a missing problem here, and that seems to be the source of all this confusion.
“When they get older," my daughter says, "those kids in the commercial are going to look back and really regret that their parents allowed them to be in that ad.”
John-david Morgan
Endorsements, John-David Morgan, Watchdogging the Media
I proudly voted “no” against this pointless wedge issue this morning.
I voted NO
and just an FYI, while Fair WI adds used volunteers or ordinary wisconsinites on the street (who gave permission), the adds the pro amendment people ran used paid actors.
Paid actors? Apparently they didn’t want to taint real children from real families with this pernicious amendment.
I thought Wisconsin would do better with this.
under hippa federal law, a patient may make anyone their health care power of attorney, even their gay partner.
Fair Wisconsin argument regarding health care is incorrect.
You simply sign a legal health care poa, and give the hospital permission to consult with that person.
Also, phone calls made by Fair Wis. to intentionally deceive and mislead voters day before election were despicable.
If the patient is in a coma, Sally. You are nitpicking. There are all sorts of situations where other family members can potentially step in and deny the decision making role of a gay partner, even in picking a child up from school.
Despicable is the GOP national scheme to make this an issue to press the buttons of voters — though whether or not these referendums help Republicans at the polls is debatable.
Despicable are repeated lies throughout this process from both Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin) and Scott Fitzgerald, the cosponsors of the insidious marriage amendment.
If the amendment is defeated they said, the door will be open for courts to make gay marriage legal in Wisconsin. FALSE.
The New Jersey courts, they said, consecrated gay marriage in their decision last month. FALSE.
No one in the U.S. has lost health care benefits because of a marriage amendment, they said. FALSE. It happened to state of Michigan employees. And to say this after Gundrum, Fitz, et al, voted to deny an extension of health benefits to UW-System employees with legal partnerships, affecting both gay and straight couples
Wake up. Marriage is under attack in all this, but not from gay couples or from Fair Wisconsin. Throughout the history of Wisconsin, the state constitution has been used to extend protections to citizens. With the marriage amendment, for the first time the constitution will be used to remove and prevent civil union and partnership protections of thousands of couples, gay and straight.
Despicable.
John -
You are crapping all over the sanctitiy of marriage. No matter how hard you try, you can not change something that is not natural into something that is. It brings nothing but destruction to a couples life. There is only one way to reproduce, and that is for a reason. People should not be denied health care for any reason, and that IS a seperate issue, but to promote something that is destructive to the preservation of mankind is despicable.
Now, now, James, you know damn well that if Wisconsin conservatives and the Family Research Institute wanted to preserve the sanctity of marriage, all they had to do was delete the following clause: “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?”
Had that happened, there would have been no outcry, health benefits would not be threatened, and we would not be having this conversation right now.
Unfortunately, that’s not what happened, is it James?
Calling me despicable doesn’t change the reality that this so-called marriage amendment was intentionally hurtful to citizens of the state, that it created an indsidious conversation about marriage and privacy that should never have occured, or that it is a direct affront to the state constitution, the common law and the common good — not to mention the intelligence of all involved.
James - The sanctity of marriage is being “crapped” on by more than just homosexuals and lesbians. There are straight men and women in marriage who are having affairs and engaging in wife-swapping, etc.. I personally voted YES, because it is MY whole-hearted belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That being said, I don’t think anyone at all should be stripped of their rights to health care and/or benefits.
Furthermore, even though I voted YES, the fact that the ad used children is wrong.