November 7, 2006

The gay marriage ban passes...

... in Wisconsin.


Mortimer Brezny said...

The Mehlman page isn't working.

But note that HD is like that. It's why I was addicted to it for awhile. You can see right through the make-up.

So far Hillary is the only winner I've seen who didn't thank God first.

Seven Machos said...

What'd I tell you about this dumb in-your-face strategy regarding gay marriage.

As for the rest of the results: a hearty contratulations to the Democrats. I hope that they will take a conciliatory and cordial tone in Congress, Uniting and not dividing and all that.

Joe Giles said...

Yet it's trailing in AZ.


Simon said...

It's passing everywhere. The only place it's even close is Arizona, and when you look at the actual returns, rather than the exit polls, it's ahead.

Unknown said...

Where are you looking Simon? It's losing in Arizona based on the actual results.

Arizona is very libertarian. I am not surprised. Wisconsin, Colorodo, Virginia, Idaho, are all bigoted states - so I'm not surprised. No sane gay person should live in those states.

Unknown said...

And it is close in South Dakota too, but will probably pass there by 52-48.

Wisconsin is more bigoted than South Dakota. Remember that.

Unknown said...

And two gay Republicans were elected today.

Crist as governor of Florida. And Rep. Smith in Nebraska.

chickelit said...

Probably because SD has no flaming Madison in it's face to scare the natives?

Mortimer Brezny said...

All gay people are Republicans, including the religious leaders, no matter how haggard-looking. I learned that this election cycle.

wv: clhbjzl

I can't believe you wore that clh to the blog party, Monica! It still has bjzl on it.

amba said...

The total abortion ban was defeated in SD -- by one point, last I saw.

sonicfrog said...

Boooo! But the people have spoken. Now the gay community has to work hard to convince peopl that overturning these bans are in the best interest of the country, and not just call everyone bigots.

Eli Blake said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eli Blake said...

I live in Arizona.

People here are practical about things like this. And opponents of the ban made the perfectly cogent argument that if a business wanted to provide domestic partner benefits, then it wasn't up to the state (or the voters) to regulate them and tell them they can't.

The ban was written to also ban civil unions, and people got to realizing that if you wrote discrimination into the state constitution then gay people would move elsewhere. And they are productive members of society who make good money (in fact almost twice what straight households earn) and spend it, so losing them would be an economic loss to the state.

So if you live in one of the states that banned gay marriage, then go ahead and send us all your homosexuals. Our businesses will be happy to have some new mostly relatively affluent, upscale people move here and spend their money in our stores.

Then we can both be happy. Us in Arizona will by happy with our prosperity. And the rest of you can be happy with what you are accomplishing by making someone else's life harder, whatever it is anyway.

Joe Giles said...


Re: your first point, if Arizonans (and I'm one) voted no on 107 to ensure businesses could give DP benefits then they're dumb as rocks, not practical.

107 had nothing to do with businesses, but preventing the state and its sub-organs from giving those benefits via a marriage-like status.

Derve said...

Just the opposit sonicfrog.

They tried to fight nice, and they lost. They thought the strategy of sending gay people (and allies) to home front doors, to show people how wholesome gay people can be would win votes. Maybe it got some. A lot of people will be nice to your face, just to shut the door.

They asked, "how would Jesus vote?" and courted the Christian vote playing the religion card to the hilt, underestimating the Catholics. In this archdiocese last Sunday, all churches were required to play during Mass, without comment, an audiotape from the bishop explaining how and why this issue affects Catholics (but carefully crafted not to mention the election or referendum).

Their campaign leader was a professional political worker -- not gay, who didn't have much at stake either way -- except professionally. He advised a "clean campaign", I'm sure. An online "debate" was set up against a defined opponent, with another opponent acting as moderator. When urged to find a more balanced format, FairWisconsin wanted to play nice.

Playing nice lost. Once the mourning period is over, maybe homosexuals can realize hard defense is the only way to win. Especially against the Catholics. Not playing safe, sending gay people door to door knocking on private residences, convincing fellow citizens they are nice people worthy of similar rights.

Oh, and for all those who gave the opponents front-page free ad play here, even while burying a link to a FairWisconsin commercial in the comments, shame on you. Did you really think that ad was ineffective? You don't fight that with another sappy ad about children either, as one suggested. You take on the first ad directly. Playing nice loses.

Seven Machos said...

Derve -- What does that even mean? I know you are angry, but you sound absolutely, utterly ridiculous.

The in-your-face strategy fails. Again. So...what? Double-down with pipe bombs? What the hell are you talling about? Please give specifics.

tjl said...

"What'd I tell you about this dumb in-your-face strategy regarding gay marriage?"

How right you are. If only the chosen strategy (of those who appoint themselves to decide these things) had been civil partnerships achieved by legislative action, the results would have been very different. Now DTL will be more deeply entrenched in his winning strategy of denouncing all heteros as bigots. What a way to win allies in what will now be a generation-long struggle to repeal all these constitutional amendments.

MadisonMan said...

Well, Good Bye Domestic Partner benefits.

Derve said...

The in-your-face strategy fails. Again.

There was no in-your-face strategy.
The campaign followed the "be nice" advice.
They lost.

Derve said...

"If only the chosen strategy had been civil partnerships achieved by legislative action, the results would have been very different.

Wrong again.
The bigots who chose this fight specifically included language against civil unions. They hoped it would drive enough conservative voters to the poll, even held back legislation so the vote would coincide with the gubernatorial election. (No coincidence, no matter how some would screech "paranoid".) It's hardball.

Oh yeah.
The Democratic governor squeaked one out. All that discrimination Wisconsin Republicans, for naught. Unless you consider they might really be against marriage/civil unions/equal rights for gay people. Just protecting their own children, future generations you know.

Derve said...

Yet the conclusion here is:
if those gay people only would have been a little nicer, groveled a little louder and longer...

We only voted against them because they think we are bigots; we love gay people, if they would only be more nice next time, maybe we'll reconsider. lol.

8:34 AM, November 08, 2006

Fenrisulven said...

Actually Derve, my experience here with you and Edward has convinced me that your team is intolerant and bigoted.

Derve said...

Real life,
We're playing in a different league, fen. You're just tossing it around in AAA. Cheerleading from the sides.

Joe Giles said...

maybe homosexuals can realize hard defense is the only way to win. Especially against the Catholics.

Wondering if the shuttering of Catholic Charities in Mass. because they referred gays + lesbians to other adoption agencies helped lead to the passage of any of these amendments.

Yell bigotry all you want, but part of the problem with gay marriage advocates is that they yell one thing while there's an obvious larger agenda on the horizon.