RECENT  POSTS:  » Court upholds Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance » Maggie Gallagher won't toast you while you trap your spouse in sin » NOM pre-spins its likely low #March4Marriage attendance » 'Children of gays' lawyer to SCOTUS: Ban same-sex marriage so bisexuals will marry heterosexually » Audio: Ryan T. Anderson says sexual orientation speaks to content of character; links it to sadomasochism, polyamory » WHOA: FRC 'reediting' all those heinous fasting-for-marriage prayers I've been showing you!! » Man who dedicates his life to fighting marriage equality, gay parenting: 'I don't work to harm others' » FRC's eighth day of fasting-for-discrimination: Uses passage about forced drowning to condemn gay parents » NOM: Marriage is some creepy number that looks like it's about to behead one spouse » Desperate anti-gay movement's latest attempt to dehumanize: Gay unions harm straight kids  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/08/2006

Debate in Wisconsin over marriage amendment summary; we mediate, suggesting 'steaming pile of discriminatory poo' as alternative descriptor

by Jeremy Hooper

   Despite objections from those who wish to ban two dudes from legal hitching, Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager (pic.) has indicated that she won't change the summary she provided for the state's proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage. She'd been requested to do so by those opposed to gay marriage, who are claiming that Lautenschlager's summary of the measure shows a bias against them because it points out that domestic partner benefits could possibly be affected by the gay marriage ban (as determined by further legislative or judicial determination), a charge that the anti-gay marriage crowd says is untrue. But we say to those fighting for the marriage ban:

Guys, cool your jets. This sort of hair splitting won't matter one iota in the future. All that will be remembered is that you worked steadfastly to tarnish your state's most precious document with inequality. Whether or not it would affect domestic partnerships -- yes, an issue that could really affect the lives of many of your state's unmarried couples, and one that Lautenschlager was right to address. But in the epic tale that is American history, this lil' debate won't even merit a footnote in the chapter known as "Discriminatory Actions of the Early 21st Century." You've dedicated much time and effort to dividing your state and wounding the souls of countless gay residents and their allies. Rather than concern yourself with Lautenschlager's assessment of your actions and the repercussions that could stem from them, you might want to instead assess why you are trying so desperately to make life harder and more stigmatized for those who just so happen to love in ways other than yourselves.

Hopefully they'll follow our advice!

Wisconsin residents will vote on the marriage ban November 7; Wisconsin gays will either cry over its mean-spirited approval, or rather celebrate, yet still shake their heads at its mean-spirited impetus, on November 8.

Spokesman: Lautenschlager won't change marriage amendment summary [AP via Duluth News Tribune]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails