Wis. marriage ban hearing draws crowd

[swimmernsecretsea]

Jen Christensen, PlanetOut Network
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / 03:45 PM

A fired-up crowd jammed a hearing room Tuesday at the Wisconsin state capitol in Madison to discuss a constitutional amendment that would ban marriage rights for gay couples.

Even before the testimony in front of the two legislative committees could begin, opponents made sure their voices were heard. During the session's usually mundane opening recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, they shouted "for all" after the "liberty and justice" part.

Hundreds gathered on each side of the debate during the public hearing, a step toward the legislature's mandatory second vote on the amendment. The Republican-controlled body first approved the amendment in 2004, but under Wisconsin law, the legislature must pass any amendment to the state Constitution in two consecutive sessions.

The amendment's backers say it is necessary because the state's current law is too vague. Wisconsin law defines marriage as a union between a man and a wife. This amendment to the state constitution would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It would also stop the state from recognizing any legal status that is "substantially similar" to marriage, such as civil unions.

Supporters of the amendment trotted out some unusual arguments. Co-author Mark Gundrum, a Republican from New Berlin, told the committees that Wisconsin needed the amendment in part to keep teens from being confused. He argued that the Wisconsin school system would have to teach teens about families with gay parents if gay people were allowed to marry in the state. He also argued that society needed to be protected from gay parents who couldn't provide "gender equality" for their children.

Opponents of the amendment say it would enshrine discrimination. They argued it would prohibit state and local governments from providing domestic partnership benefits. A number of Wisconsin school districts offer health benefits for their employees' unmarried partners, and the cities of Milwaukee and Madison maintain domestic partnership registries. Lawyers for Madison released opinions last year that suggested an amendment would keep cities from offering such benefits.

If put to a statewide vote, there may be considerable voter support for the amendment. Members of the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage attended Tuesday's hearing and brought legislators a petition signed by nearly 56,000 people in support.

No state that has put a marriage amendment up for a vote has turned it down.

Link here: http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/11/29/4

[sui generis]

1. and no state that would have voted to ban equal rights for blacks

would have lost either.

It's a good thing we're not black, or we'd be married by now.

This is so ridiculous and more, to see young black people and immigrants and other minorities out there voting to tell me that I can't marry the person I love.

For shame, America. For fucking shame. The only thing you can agree on, as usual, is bigotry.

on edit: bizarre phrasing stems from sui observing the african american charismatic churches in DFW lined up to the end of the block to vote with their pastors quietly walking the line and proudly telling the news cameras that they were there to ban gay marriage.

[xchrom]

2. ''The only thing you can agree on, as usual, is bigotry.''

i thought that could stand repeating.

[BOSSHOG]

3. I believe a petition drive to ban divorce

via constitutional amendment is in order. How could christians oppose it? I think I'll start razing a little hell with that idea down here in one of the reddest states in the land, the home of trent lott his own damn self.

[peacebird]

4. Lovely! Ban divorce. Punish PUBLICALLY all who commit ADULTERY.

The "reichtwing" nutjobs claim God is on their side and the Bible calls homosexualtiy a sin which they MUST oppose with all their "moral fober"

then by God let's give them some of their own medicine!

Put up the Wiccan Rede anywhere they insist on posting the 10 Commandments. How can they say no? I mean - the govt isn't supporting ONE type religion over others, is it?

[BOSSHOG]

5. And they get their hate for homosexuals

in the old testament but downplay everything else in it. Just picking and choosing in the good book what suits their purposes. Would that be biblical activism as opposed to a strict interpretation of the book?

[peacebird]

6. Just like with Judges - it's only "activism" if they rule against you

:eyes: