Sunday, March 05, 2006

Beware Gay Marriage Ban on Ballot

Last evening, I attended a forum at the University in Marshfield to hear Deb Price speak. She is a lesbian journalist who has been writing for the Detroit News for about 14 years now. She is married (Canadian license) to Joyce Murdoch, her partner of many years. and together they have weathered the storms of outing, civil unions, and finally legal marriage. They have also written at least 2 books together. I have known about Deb for a few years now, mainly because her column sometimes appears in USA Today and at times in the Marshfield News-Herald. I came away from that forum newly energized and motivated to drive home to people what havoc this suggested amendment would create, not only in the lives of gay/lesbians but also among heterosexual couples and their children. (I refer to couples living together without benefit of marriage.) An amendment such as this, being a so-called "Super Doma", would outlaw civil unions and put partnership benefits in deep peril, subjecting many legal disagreements to the decision of our already over-taxed court system. I was pleased to see that a large crowd attended this forum, and that we all seemed single-minded in our determination to keep the state of WI progressive and to vote no on this hate-filled and prejucial amendment.

Along these lines, I was also pleased that 2 of our local representatives have spoken loudly and clearly against this ballot issue. Rep. Amy Vruwink and Rep. Louis Molepske both spoke against it in the local Sunday paper,Central Wisconsin Sunday. I wrote to both and thanked them. After all, they will get some hate mail, so I figured they might like a pleasant letter as well.

I think a simple strategy is in order when we talk about this possible ban. Instead of dwelling on the "hate the gay" emotion which this bill is designed to engender, we need to inform people of just how deeply this ban would affect heterosexuals as well. I doubt that the average voter really knows the full danger inherent in this ballot proposal.

3 comments:

Ed said...

Thanks for the information about the meeting. You are 100% correct that the correct strategy for dealing with this is to point out that this ill-advised legislation will also adversely affect the heterosexual community as well.

I'm pleasantly surprised that Amy-Sue has spoken out.

We know why this issue is on the ballot in November. This is the Republican "wedge issue" they intend to use to drive their voters to the polls and with which to "tar" the Democratic Party.

Guess what Repubbies....we don't consider it "tar". You're in for a nasty shock.

e

EDW said...

Thanks LoLo for the meeting information... I wish I had been free yesterday, but swamped with school work. Anyway, I wanted to make note of a non-profit I just recently joined that is fighting for the rights of unmarried people, including gays and lesbians, cohabitating heterosexuals, singles, widows, and divorcees--with or with out children. The group is called Unmarried America (http://www.unmarriedamerica.org).
The Web site provides vital legal information for unmarried Americans regarding partnership benefits, tax laws, and workplace discrimination. I think if we have candidates who take a stance on some of these issues, this will be a means towards victory. Unmarried people outnumber marrieds in the U.S. Unfortunately, our laws, particularly our tax laws, favor marrieds. Perhaps if candidates speak about the issues that affect unmarried individuals, we will see more of them turn out to vote.

LoLo said...

Thanks, Jen, for your comments and the link to unmarriedamerica.org. At the Deb Price forum, someone also announced that a workshop would be held this coming weekend in Stevens Point related to benefits of unmarried couples. Lacking both a pen and a razor sharp memory, I didn't take this down. Do you happen to have any information on it?