RECENT  POSTS:  » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm) » Video: 'Vice' covers the sad, dangerous, discredited world of 'conversion therapy' » Buzzfeed: Jeb Bush's nascent team is teeming with gay Republicans » FRC prays against gay acceptance to 'avoid the wrath of God' » Video: Mark Cuban supports religious biz owners that 'just say no' to serving same-sex weddings » We're not driven by animus, say groups that are known for showing animus toward gay couples » Video: Onetime LGBT community foe delivers crushing blow to 'religious freedom' (a.k.a. license to discriminate) bills » Q. How does Mark Regnerus 'prove' he's not an anti-gay activist? » It's not a 'marriage debate' simply because pro-discrimination lawmakers say it is » The AFA's 'Anti-Christian Bigotry Map' is the most unintentionally hilarious thing you'll see today  

« 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