Wisconsin considering ban on gay marriage.

[bloemmarc]

The state I live in is considering a ban on gay marriage, which I guess the majority of the state is agreeing on. Governor Doyle is for gay marriage, but the repulican state legislature is giving him problems with it, and it looks like congressman Mark Green may defeat Doyle.

[SC Harrison]

The state I live in is considering a ban on gay marriage, which I guess the majority of the state is agreeing on. Governor Doyle is for gay marriage, but the repulican state legislature is giving him problems with it, and it looks like congressman Mark Green may defeat Doyle.


Here's your majority, Marc:

...If approved, (the proposal) would be placed in the state constitution. The proposed language reads, and I am quoting now, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

VOTE FOR: 48.5 percent
VOTE AGAINST: 47.8 percent
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED: 3.7 percent

http://www.waxingamerica.com/2006/07/gay_marriage_ba.html

I'm betting (five bucks, max, 'cause I'm a cheap bas^@rd) that last sentence will end up making this a loser in November.

[bloemmarc]

We'll see what happens.

[whistlelock]

I think it's ridiculous that anything like a ban on gay marriage ends up as a constitutional amendment at either the state or federal level.

Clearly it's a matter for legislation, and not the charter for state/federal government.

[bloemmarc]

That, I could agree with.


I think it's ridiculous that anything like a ban on gay marriage ends up as a constitutional amendment at either the state or federal level.

Clearly it's a matter for legislation, and not the charter for state/federal government.

[Jean Marie]

Here's your majority, Marc:

...If approved, (the proposal) would be placed in the state constitution. The proposed language reads, and I am quoting now, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

VOTE FOR: 48.5 percent
VOTE AGAINST: 47.8 percent
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED: 3.7 percent

http://www.waxingamerica.com/2006/07/gay_marriage_ba.html

I'm betting (five bucks, max, 'cause I'm a cheap bas^@rd) that last sentence will end up making this a loser in November.
Am I reading this correctly? Your numbers make it look like a dead heat...op said it would lose...I'm confused. How does a...I suck at math...a miniscule of a pecentage of a difference of a margin thingum make it a potential loss? Will someone please 'splain that to me :)

P.S. I don't give a rat's patooie who marries whom. Furthermore, I don't think it's the government's business, either. And, I said this earlier, under the Bill of Rights, aren't we supposed to have = rights to all the rights everyone has rights to, right? Right.

[Christine N.]

IMO, clearly it's a matter for individuals to decide for themselves. Why does government insist they get to decide how we live our day to day lives? (outside of things that are harmful to ourselves or other people like drugs, guns, and traffic rules :))

[TheGaffer]

That one sentence at the end is indeed the kicker there -- it essentially makes civil unions illegal as well. Am I reading that right? That's what it seems like. From polls I've seen a majority remains against gay marriage, not against civil unions that confer certain rights (will, health care) on partners.

[SC Harrison]

That one sentence at the end is indeed the kicker there -- it essentially makes civil unions illegal as well. Am I reading that right? That's what it seems like. From polls I've seen a majority remains against gay marriage, not against civil unions that confer certain rights (will, health care) on partners.

That's why I bolded that sentence. It will force the middle-of-the-roaders to vote against the amendment, because it's not just limiting religious status, but secular as well. It doesn't make Civil Unions illegal, but it does make them legally meaningless. As Marc said, we'll see.

[BottomlessCup]

I already voted against it. (absentee)

The last sentence messes with straight people, too. Many elderly people form civil unions because they want a partner, but feel silly going through the whole marriage thing. And common law marriages are affected as well.

I hope it'll fail, but who knows.

Arizona's law seems to have a much better chance of failing.