Amendment proponents hide real agenda of driving gays from state

[goddess40]

This is a fantastic column in our local paper written by our editor.

"The amendment's language makes clear that if passed, the Wisconsin Constitution would prohibit marriage or anything similar to marriage -- including some legal and contractual agreements -- between anyone other than a man and a woman.


I think that's a cruel and unnecessary slap at gay people and others who just want to live their lives in peace and commit their love to one another. "
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061012/WDH06/610120355/1636

[xchrom]

1. lol -- just shows to what extremes people are willing to go

to show just how much they hate gay folk.

the operative word in the above is ''show''.

[dsc]

2. This part is even more important

As long as we're on the topic, let's discuss comments I received in reaction to my most recent column about gay marriage.

In that column, I discussed a submission by Lee Webster, which we printed, and which contained the misstatement that the amendment being considered "clearly states 'Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be recognized as marriage in this state.'"


That's not true. It excludes half the amendment --the most offensive half, outlawing anything "substantially similar to marriage."


I said in that column that such misstatements no longer would be permitted on this page -- and the letters accusing me of censorship rolled in.


First off, censorship is the government telling people what they can and can't say or publish, not a private business determining what it prints.


Second, as I said in that column, it's errant fact disguised as opinion that I consider most trecherous and which I will not print


Would that more editors would make the same judgement.

[goddess40]

3. The nasty man that wrote this is a therapist

as is his wife. My son's saw her for a short while but we were done when she told them they had to worship Jesus to get better, know we are atheists.

I did send the editor a nice thank you e-mail because I'm sure he'll get loads of hate filled ones.

My letter to the editor is on the web page, I'm hoping it makes it to the regular paper tomorrow.
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061010/WDH06/610100695/1638/WDHopinion

[Tyo]

4. I can't believe the second part would stand up in court

How can you make it illegal for two competent adults to enter into a contract or series of contracts regarding ownership and/or disposition of financial assets and property,
hospital visitation and medical directives and so on? Would it be illegal for two people of the same sex to form a trust for the holding of mutal assets? I can't see how the gay-haters could make this stick.

[goddess40]

5. depends on who the courts are nt

[Tyo]

6. This is basic contract law

I think it would be pretty unlikely for any court not to allow contracts like this and have that decision upheld.

However, if the state were to try to construct some sort of package of domestic partnership laws that would be available only to same-sex couples I think there'd be an issue. But if all couples whether hetero and homo could avail themselves of this as an alternative to the marriage contract I think it would be difficult to outlaw it.

[davidinalameda]

7. the constitution governs what is and what isn't law

contracts would cease to be able to cover issues like this

[Tyo]

8. You've got a point alright

But it is so blatantly discriminatory that it seems like you would be able to challenge it or override it at the Federal level. Also, even a Constitutional Amendment, whether state or federal, isn't necessarily forever. I'm having a glass of wine right now and that unconstitutional for about 15 years toward the beginning of the last century.

But having said that, I can't deny that the whole thing bites. Does serve to show us their true colors though (as if we needed any more evidence) They said it was about marriage\, but obviously any arrangement that serves to "legitimize" our relationships is not an option as far as they are concerned.

[davidinalameda]

9. you're right

it is blatently discrimatory and voters in 20 states have chosen to write hate into their state constitutions


I don't know if federal law can override these amendments; I would think that the equal protection clause would be able to be invoked but I'm not a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar

[donco6]

10. How is this amendment doing in the polls lately?

Have you heard anything?

[sui generis]

11. so register as a business

with mutual assets and survivorship.

There is NOTHING the state constitution can do to PROVE you did it because you're gay, unless they're going to start proving everyone else is straight.

The point is not to do that of course but to thumb our noses at the fuckers. All they can do is inconvenience us. We're still going to get married, have children, have jobs, own homes, and do whatever the fuck we want, because we're American, not because we're gay.