MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Thursday, July 10, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 80.0° F  Partly Cloudy
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

Postby TomDavidson » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:29 am

The wording of the question makes it impossible for all those homosexuals lining up to vote "FOR" to answer fairly. ;) j/k

----

A few years ago, I wrote the following summation of this issue:

Here's my paraphrase (i.e. humorous distortion) of the five most common reasons given [against same sex marriage]. I fully expect anyone opposed to same-sex marriage to recognize their own argument here and be offended by my oversimplification of it.

1) Heterosexuals won't take marriage seriously if they have to share it with gay people.
2) Letting gay people enjoy monogamous relationships might make us stop hating them.
3) If we let gay people marry, we'll have to let rocks marry donkeys. And while individual rock-donkey couples might make decent parents, we certainly can't put them on equal footing for things like adoption rights when there are thousands of heterosexual couples out there right now waiting for a cute blonde baby to show up on the adoption list, and if the rock-donkey couples take all the cute babies, the heterosexual couples are going to have to start paying Asian agencies even more than they already are to avoid adopting ugly middle-schoolers.
4) My church doesn't marry gay people. My church doesn't marry Catholics, either. So I'm also opposed to Catholic marriage.
5) Marriage is defined as being "a man and a woman." Somewhere. In some dictionary. And I can't afford a new dictionary, so I hate it when words change.

Note that I'm not attempting to explain why we SHOULD hate gay people (or, if you must, the "sin" of gay behavior, not the sinner); that's just a premise on which argument #2 is founded. But there's arguments for that, too, both secular and religious:

1) God says so, and we don't want to piss off God.
2) If we stop hating gay people, we'll all turn gay. And then we'll go extinct.
3) Gender roles are essential to our society, which we define as a society in which gender roles are essential.

MY solution? Get rid of marriage entirely as a legal institution, replaced by civil unions for all. If people want to get married in a church, let 'em -- and let the churches apply whatever standards they want to that completely ceremonial, um, ceremony. But then make them sign a little paper that makes their "marriage" also a "civil union."

But, unfortunately, if you look at the REAL problems (as stated above *grin*), you realize why this isn't much of a "compromise" -- even if it fully solves the problem as usually phrased by SSM opponents.
TomDavidson
Senior Member
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Madcity Expat » Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:26 pm

I will vote no. No great surprise there, I suppose. But for the sake of argument, let me complicate the issue.

Yes, there is no shortage of outright bigots out there who are against gay marriage for reasons of hateful malice. And, yes, this year's ploy has as much to do with a purely machivilian attempt at the WisGOP to manipulate electoral politics in an election year. These are reasons enough to elicit my opposition. My other reasons for opposing the amendment include the excessive, unnecessary, heavy-handed step of seeking a constitutional amendment (I am not swayed by the "democracy" argument of the Right - they are not seeking a democratic solution, they are trying to make it unreversable - an undemocratic purpose). Also, I find the effort to outlaw civil unions as well as marriage unacceptable, because I see civil unions as an appropriate and necessary compromise to the controversy.

However, I would ask my bretheren on the left to acknowledge that the recognition of homosexual unions is a significant cultural and institutional shift. It is one that I personally view as acceptable and relatively benevolent. However I am not surprised that it is difficult for many traditionally minded folk to digest. Please recognize that there is a large constituency out there - the majority, I think - who are not bigots or ideologues, but who are nonetheless leary of taking what they perceive to be a major redefinition of marriage on traditionalist grounds. I think alot of these people are simply concerned about what they perceive to be a major cultural and institutional shift. A good number of them might vote for the amendment because they are relatively non-political and relatively uninformed and they perceive it as maintaining a status quo (while I would argue the amendment actually is a disruption of the status quo).

Cultural change takes time. At this point I think the most sensible and productive tack (the one least likely to generate unreasonable and unhelpful push-back) is to defeat this amendment on civil libertarian grounds (i.e. its ban on civil unions). I do think that churches should be able to "marry" anyone they want to. But churches should not dictate to the state who it will recognize as a legally joined couple. An informal, anecdotal survey of my and my wife's family members (a pretty good sample of Wisconsin demographic) tells me that those who are uncomfortable with "gay marriage" are less so about civil unions - Those same people are also an confusing combination of well-meaning, ill-informed, and traditionalist (small "c" conservative), and have a general "live-let-live" attitude about most people. In time, I think, many of these sort could be persuaded - through the example of a successful civil unions law - that married gay people will have no discernable impact on anything that matters to them - i.e. their own marriages.
Madcity Expat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 2:02 pm
Location: mill-e-wah-que..."the good land"

Postby Madcity Expat » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:48 pm

Madcity Expat wrote:...let me complicate the issue.

...I see civil unions as an appropriate and necessary compromise to the controversy.

However, I would ask my bretheren on the left to acknowledge that the recognition of homosexual unions is a significant cultural and institutional shift.

...A good number of them might vote for the amendment because they are relatively non-political and relatively uninformed and they perceive it as maintaining a status quo (while I would argue the amendment actually is a disruption of the status quo).

Cultural change takes time....

...In time, I think, many of these sort could be persuaded - through the example of a successful civil unions law - that married gay people will have no discernable impact on anything that matters to them - i.e. their own marriages.


Hm... I thought someone would argue with me.
Madcity Expat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 2:02 pm
Location: mill-e-wah-que..."the good land"

Postby Hank_Venison » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:57 pm

Madcity Expat wrote:
Madcity Expat wrote:...let me complicate the issue.

...I see civil unions as an appropriate and necessary compromise to the controversy.

However, I would ask my bretheren on the left to acknowledge that the recognition of homosexual unions is a significant cultural and institutional shift.

...A good number of them might vote for the amendment because they are relatively non-political and relatively uninformed and they perceive it as maintaining a status quo (while I would argue the amendment actually is a disruption of the status quo).

Cultural change takes time....

...In time, I think, many of these sort could be persuaded - through the example of a successful civil unions law - that married gay people will have no discernable impact on anything that matters to them - i.e. their own marriages.


Hm... I thought someone would argue with me.



No argument here, everything you said makes perfect sense to me.
Hank_Venison
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:32 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Previous

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar