"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a 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."Fair Wisconsin is working to defeat the amendment. You might consider helping them out.
UPDATE: And what's with this UW law student saying "Even Althouse things [sic] the amendment is full of 'murky language' and that 'it’s a bad idea'"? I questioned that locution but got no answer. I suspect the student's reasoning is: Althouse is a big conservative, so she must be against gay marriage, so if she thinks the amendment is bad, it means a lot. Quite aside from the fact that plenty of conservatives favor gay marriage and that I'm not any kind of a social conservative, I've been blogging in favor of gay marriage since January 2004, my first month of blogging. You need to think more clearly if you're going to write about people by name. And check your comments to see whether people are raising questions you need to respond to.
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
Good luck, Ann. Last year in Ohio a lot of else felt the same way you do, but it isn't off the wall to think the similar amendment on the ballot here then is what attracted enough right-wing voters to the polls to re-elect Bush. And, sure enough, the new consititutional amendment has raised complicated issues, like whether domestic abuse laws can apply to unmarried couples.
Dave: I can't tell what all is covered by that language. What are the details of what is outlawed? What does it mean to say that something "substantially similiar" "shall not be valide or recognized"? Why don't you tell me since you say it's clear?
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.
It's terribly murky. It doesn't name the one man and one woman whose marriage will be recognized.
JC: LOL.
Me, I like the "for unmarried individuals" bit.
After all, they could have said "but not constituting a lawful marriage", restricting the status on the character of the institution; it can't be marriage-like unless it's a marriage. Instead, they restricted marriage-like domestic partnerships on the marital status of the individuals involved.
Accordingly, a domestic partnership for a married man with another married man is legal -- both individuals are married individuals, so a domestic partnership law for them is not a demestic partnership law for "unmarried individuals".
Geez. There go you being an Evil Republican again, Ann.
...wait...
I think I favor this amendment.
It's a terrible waste for all of those cute farm boys to be living in Wisconsin. We should give them whatever incentives we can to encourage them to move to gay friendly places.
Like New York for example.
"A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
Uh, no common-law marriages?
Thank you. It means a lot to me to see people who are not personally necessarily very invested in gay rights issues take a stand on issues like this. We went to a wedding recently for a straight couple who asked guests to give donations to a similar organization in lieu of gifts. The odds seem to be in favor of passing the amendment in Wisconsin, which is all the more reason to strongly support its opposition.
The second sentence is an attempt to prevent civil unions from being recognized, and arguably forbids heterosexual common-law marriage or other arrangements "substantially similar" to marriage. Texas passed a similar amendment last year.
If I remember correctly, in at least one incident where such an amendment passed (in Nebraska, I believe), a court held that a woman who was beaten by her live-in boyfriend couldn't get the benefit of the bump-up in penalty for domestic violence because the court held that doing so would essentially create a status substantially similar to marriage (domesticity = marriage, I guess) for unmarried live-in couples.
I hope Wisconsin doesn't vote the way Texas did. I must point out, however, that amendments like this often show that conservatives who say "I'm against gay marriage, but have no problem with civil unions" don't put their money where there mouth is, when it comes to actual behavior in the voting booth. If they did, they'd vote against this sort of thing, and conservative activists would stop at the first sentence if all that was at issue was something called "marriage".
For those interested I've been doing some number crunching on the Federal amendment.
John in Nashville: You obviously don't know much about where this blog has been. The archives are there. Why not use them before making an assertion about me, unless you want to advertise that you don't care about the truth?
Thanks for the link Ann. There are two same-sex couples on my street, one with a kid, and I work with another. I'd like to do all I can to support them.
My point is a narrow one concerning rhetoric: It usually strikes me as weird every time I hear somebody refer to an amendment to a constitution as "desecration."
A constitutional provision is what it is. To say that the proposed amendment would "desecrate" the state constitution is to imply that the constitution is God's own truth and that IT SHALL NOT CHANGE!!! That can't be right.
Doesn't the New York constitution regulate the width of ski trails?
Ok. I gave. And it hurt. Although I am a gay man, gay marriage does not interest me, as I consider the term marriage refers to a religious ceremony performed for a man and a woman (and history appears to confirm that). Unlike Andrew Sullivan, I am not overly concerned what the neighbors might think, or reforming one particular church stuck somewhere in the 15th or 16th century, or obtaining a piece of paper marking official validation for my life from the state.
That said, I think civil unions are a fine idea for those who wish them and this proposition is designed to preclude that possibility as well, not just what constitutes a "marriage." The campaign for recognition of civil unions was on the verge of victory in some states when the Massachusetts Supreme Court stepped in. Since then, even supposed gay-friendly states like California have stepped back from recognition.
As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, the proponents of this measure have an agenda far greater than "defending marriage" or their proposed amendment would be much simpler. Unlike some here, I have no illusions that this will be defeated - voters have historically expressed little support for the civil rights of "others" (whoever those "others" may have been as long as it wasn't them), and it is so easy to demagogue this issue. Stories like this one in The Advocate are not, shall we say, "helpful" to the "No" cause.
Randy Rogers
"I consider the term marriage refers to a religious ceremony"
Strange, you _really_ don't think people who go through a non-religious civil ceremony are married?
Lawyapalooza: Thanks for responding. I think I understand a little better now.
Lawyapalooza:
"higher than and more permanent than legislation that responds to the times."
This is a blatant misrepresentation. The amendment is a response to those who would change one of the most foundational traditions of American (and Western) law and society. It is nonsense to have changes proposed, and then think opposition to those change is purely current politics.
Besides, marriage is more foundational to society than any constitution. To pervert that, and then shout about respecting the constitutions of the nation or various states only shows your priorities are skewed.
Nor is there "a people" being discriminated against by this law. You cannot have "a people" if you can't have children. It's just people, Wisconsinites, Americans. In general, "a people" is also recognizable: they have physical charactersitics, cultures, languages, legal and moral traditions passed down through the generations.
Finally it is not the concern of government how two people feel about each other but how they treat each other, and what effect that has on society.
lawyapalooza:
"Yikes! There was a small red-headed stranger" Scared me. I thought you knew me for a second. But now I see it was just emotional blackmail.
"Tell that to Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and" Touche. But this is just the slippery slope argument in reverse. I did not use that. Nor did I blame "gays" for all sorts of problems, or any. As for "pervert." I also have a dictionary: 2. to give a wrong meaning to; misconstrue. I meant the law.
Finally, law: "it is not for the government to interfere in private personal relationships, right?" No! I said it is the government's concern how people treat each other, but this does not mean what they feel or think about each other. This difference is the foundation of civility.
But what was your point here? Government sanction of marriage IS interference in personal relationships. You can't demand special benefits for any marriage from government, and at the same time tell government to butt out.
Marghlar,
you perverted my post. The mention of procreation was meant to be in the context of the single relatiionship. There they cannot. There is no discrimination; if a gay man can knock a woman up, he can marry her. Not "loving" her is no excuse. It's not even a choice.
"How can WI deny the right to contract between 2 individuals?" -Joe
They can make any contract they want, but the state has never been forced to recognize the terms. If that was the case, I could enter into contract with you declaring that we are exempt from state taxes. The state is not obligated to honor that contract.
I agree with Dave also -- the language doesn't seem murky to me, it seems pretty clear.
I did distinguish between "a people" and "people."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा