Stolen from ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
feminist_rage
Feb. 16th, 2004 05:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/feb04/207287.asp
Madison - Though on different sides of one of the nation's most hotly debated issues, Joan Tatarsky and Lori Schutz both had civics in mind Thursday when they attended a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment about the definition of marriage.
Gay Marriage
"I can appreciate people loving each other, but if we don't have the institution of marriage, then anything goes," said Tatarsky, a 72-year-old retiree from Milwaukee.
She said she wants the opportunity to vote on a measure defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman because the institution is too important to be left for judges to decide.
Schutz said she and her partner, Cheryl Vermillion, brought their 5-year-old son and toddler twin daughters to the Capitol from Milwaukee for a lesson in standing up for one's beliefs.
"We wanted to show them it's OK to fight with your presence," Schutz said. "We wanted to show our faces and our family."
It was Vermillion and Schutz's idea of family that fueled the debate at the hearing of the Assembly's Judiciary Committee, which took testimony on a proposed amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution.
The nearly eight hours of testimony prompted heated - and sometimes emotional - comments on subjects ranging from the church's role in recognizing same-sex marriage to the possible economic impact of such a measure on the state.
"The Ten Commandments say to honor your father and mother," Kerry Drake of Plymouth told the committee. "That's impossible to do in a gay marriage."
Limitations sought
The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin), says that only marriages between "one man and one woman" will be recognized by the state. The amendment also says any legal status that is identical or similar to that of marriage, such as civil union or civil compact, would also be invalid in the state.
A third of all Assembly members have signed on as co-sponsors; one-fourth of state senators are co-sponsors of the same bill.
Gundrum said amending the constitution is necessary because Wisconsin's current laws wouldn't prevent "activist" judges from issuing a decision that would recognize same-sex marriages.
He referred to a recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that said gays are entitled to the rights of marriage, not just those provided by civil unions.
"The courts used that opportunity to rewrite their laws to include marriage of persons of the same sex and not just of the opposite sex," Gundrum told the committee. "Liberal attorneys in black robes struck down 200 years of common law and tradition in that state in brazen fashion."
Gundrum said he hopes the committee will vote on the amendment next week, but it still has far to go. The resolution must be passed by both houses of the Legislature in two consecutive sessions, then be put before voters for approval in a statewide referendum. That means the earliest the measure is likely to be seen on a ballot is fall 2006.
The hearing occurred amid a bigger debate - both statewide and nationally - about the status of gays and lesbians and their ability to marry.
On Thursday, same-sex couples throughout the state applied for marriage licenses and were rejected. Action Wisconsin, an organization that works to protect the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, organized the effort to illustrate what it says is discrimination against same-sex partners.
And on Wednesday, state Rep. Mark Pocan and Sen. Fred Risser, both Madison Democrats, introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriages - the first such bill to be introduced in Wisconsin.
Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, who vetoed a Republican-sponsored measure last fall to define marriage as a union between a man and woman, said Thursday he does not want the state constitution amended to prohibit gay marriage. He also does not support a bill that would legalize those unions.
"I think we should keep the law exactly like it is," Doyle said. "It relates to what the definition of marriage is - it's clearly between a man and a woman."
Doyle said Republican legislators now pushing a constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriages "keep coming back to this issue to sort of gratuitously try to divide people."
A Badger Poll in December suggested that nearly two-thirds of Wisconsinites support rewriting the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. The polls was conducted by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, and sponsored by the Journal Sentinel and Madison Capital Times newspapers.
But another poll conducted on behalf of Action Wisconsin last weekend by Public Opinion Strategies, of Alexandria, Va., showed that 75% of respondents believe the Legislature should focus on "more important issues."
Tolerance needed
Opponents of the measure were quick to point out that it's rare to amend the constitution in a way that limits rights instead of extending them.
Joe Parisi, the Dane County clerk who turned down the marriage applications of 11 same-sex couples Thursday because the law required it, asked for the ability to treat all of his constituents with "dignity and respect."
"Certainly, no good can come from amending our constitution to relegate gay and lesbian citizens to second-rate status," Parisi said.
Proponents went out of their way to note that the amendment's language doesn't prohibit the Legislature, local governments or private businesses from extending or retaining particular benefits to same-sex partners.
"The amendment was carefully drafted to protect from benefits being taken away," Gundrum said to those who expressed concern about the amendment being a "slippery slope" toward limiting gays and lesbians from receiving health insurance or other services through employers' domestic-partner programs.
That wasn't enough reassurance for the Rev. Andrew Warner, a minister at Plymouth Church in Milwaukee.
Warner told the committee he worried about being able to properly access care for one of his young sons on a recent trip to the emergency room because he doesn't have the same legal protections that a heterosexual parent would.
"What state interest is served by weakening the families of these children?" he said. "The state ought to work to protect (their) stability."
Participants on both sides also fretted about the economic impact of such an amendment.
While opponents said they were concerned that Wisconsin would appear narrow-minded and drive business away from the state, proponents said they feared acceptance of same-sex marriages might be forced on business owners.
Melissa Wolfgram of Butler said that as a business owner who doesn't agree with homosexuality, she wouldn't want to be required to give benefits to an employee who happens to be part of a same-sex marriage.
"If we allow homosexuals to marry, business and the economy will be affected," Wolfgram said. "What's going to happen when Christians like my husband and I decide to leave Wisconsin?"
Some choice quotes:
If we don't have the institution of marriage, then anything goes
Well, see, gays DON'T have the institution of marriage. And they want it. So, um, where's your problem? Look to the divorce rate first, okay? Then tackle adultery and fornication. When you've done that, THEN you can whine about gay marriage.
...comments on subjects ranging from the church's role in recognizing same-sex marriage
Excuse me? Church? Um. What? Isn't this about the LAW? You know, the government?
"The Ten Commandments say to honor your father and mother," Kerry Drake of Plymouth told the committee. "That's impossible to do in a gay marriage."
*cracks up laughing*
I won't even comment. Please, everyone, post your favorite quote from the Bible that either 1. contradicts that or 2. this person almost certainly doesn't follow. Or, if you're ambitious, use another religious text. Anything goes!
"The courts used that opportunity to rewrite their laws to include marriage of persons of the same sex and not just of the opposite sex," Gundrum told the committee. "Liberal attorneys in black robes struck down 200 years of common law and tradition in that state in brazen fashion."
Gundrum, you get to be the lucky person who looks up the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority". Yes, the same thing that allowed slavery and Jim Crow laws to persist. Tyranny of the Majority.
Melissa Wolfgram of Butler said that as a business owner who doesn't agree with homosexuality, she wouldn't want to be required to give benefits to an employee who happens to be part of a same-sex marriage.
I wouldn't want to be required to give days off to people who celebrate holidays which I do not observe, but I'd do it anyway. It's called common courtesy.
"If we allow homosexuals to marry, business and the economy will be affected," Wolfgram said. "What's going to happen when Christians like my husband and I decide to leave Wisconsin?"
*dies laughing* Oh, boo-hoo. First off, it's "my husband and ME". Secondly (and not a nitpicky point this time), I really doubt there'd be a mass exodus. Those leaving would probably equal the number of those entering. I really doubt there's going to be the huge depression she predicts on the basis of this.
Five bucks says that gays are allowed to marry and she doesn't even move to another city, let alone another state.
It should be depressing, but the sillies are so very, very stupid in their comments. If they can't even come up with a decent argument....
Oh, and thanks go to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
xmorningxrosex for the post!
Madison - Though on different sides of one of the nation's most hotly debated issues, Joan Tatarsky and Lori Schutz both had civics in mind Thursday when they attended a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment about the definition of marriage.
Gay Marriage
"I can appreciate people loving each other, but if we don't have the institution of marriage, then anything goes," said Tatarsky, a 72-year-old retiree from Milwaukee.
She said she wants the opportunity to vote on a measure defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman because the institution is too important to be left for judges to decide.
Schutz said she and her partner, Cheryl Vermillion, brought their 5-year-old son and toddler twin daughters to the Capitol from Milwaukee for a lesson in standing up for one's beliefs.
"We wanted to show them it's OK to fight with your presence," Schutz said. "We wanted to show our faces and our family."
It was Vermillion and Schutz's idea of family that fueled the debate at the hearing of the Assembly's Judiciary Committee, which took testimony on a proposed amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution.
The nearly eight hours of testimony prompted heated - and sometimes emotional - comments on subjects ranging from the church's role in recognizing same-sex marriage to the possible economic impact of such a measure on the state.
"The Ten Commandments say to honor your father and mother," Kerry Drake of Plymouth told the committee. "That's impossible to do in a gay marriage."
Limitations sought
The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin), says that only marriages between "one man and one woman" will be recognized by the state. The amendment also says any legal status that is identical or similar to that of marriage, such as civil union or civil compact, would also be invalid in the state.
A third of all Assembly members have signed on as co-sponsors; one-fourth of state senators are co-sponsors of the same bill.
Gundrum said amending the constitution is necessary because Wisconsin's current laws wouldn't prevent "activist" judges from issuing a decision that would recognize same-sex marriages.
He referred to a recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that said gays are entitled to the rights of marriage, not just those provided by civil unions.
"The courts used that opportunity to rewrite their laws to include marriage of persons of the same sex and not just of the opposite sex," Gundrum told the committee. "Liberal attorneys in black robes struck down 200 years of common law and tradition in that state in brazen fashion."
Gundrum said he hopes the committee will vote on the amendment next week, but it still has far to go. The resolution must be passed by both houses of the Legislature in two consecutive sessions, then be put before voters for approval in a statewide referendum. That means the earliest the measure is likely to be seen on a ballot is fall 2006.
The hearing occurred amid a bigger debate - both statewide and nationally - about the status of gays and lesbians and their ability to marry.
On Thursday, same-sex couples throughout the state applied for marriage licenses and were rejected. Action Wisconsin, an organization that works to protect the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, organized the effort to illustrate what it says is discrimination against same-sex partners.
And on Wednesday, state Rep. Mark Pocan and Sen. Fred Risser, both Madison Democrats, introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriages - the first such bill to be introduced in Wisconsin.
Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, who vetoed a Republican-sponsored measure last fall to define marriage as a union between a man and woman, said Thursday he does not want the state constitution amended to prohibit gay marriage. He also does not support a bill that would legalize those unions.
"I think we should keep the law exactly like it is," Doyle said. "It relates to what the definition of marriage is - it's clearly between a man and a woman."
Doyle said Republican legislators now pushing a constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriages "keep coming back to this issue to sort of gratuitously try to divide people."
A Badger Poll in December suggested that nearly two-thirds of Wisconsinites support rewriting the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. The polls was conducted by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, and sponsored by the Journal Sentinel and Madison Capital Times newspapers.
But another poll conducted on behalf of Action Wisconsin last weekend by Public Opinion Strategies, of Alexandria, Va., showed that 75% of respondents believe the Legislature should focus on "more important issues."
Tolerance needed
Opponents of the measure were quick to point out that it's rare to amend the constitution in a way that limits rights instead of extending them.
Joe Parisi, the Dane County clerk who turned down the marriage applications of 11 same-sex couples Thursday because the law required it, asked for the ability to treat all of his constituents with "dignity and respect."
"Certainly, no good can come from amending our constitution to relegate gay and lesbian citizens to second-rate status," Parisi said.
Proponents went out of their way to note that the amendment's language doesn't prohibit the Legislature, local governments or private businesses from extending or retaining particular benefits to same-sex partners.
"The amendment was carefully drafted to protect from benefits being taken away," Gundrum said to those who expressed concern about the amendment being a "slippery slope" toward limiting gays and lesbians from receiving health insurance or other services through employers' domestic-partner programs.
That wasn't enough reassurance for the Rev. Andrew Warner, a minister at Plymouth Church in Milwaukee.
Warner told the committee he worried about being able to properly access care for one of his young sons on a recent trip to the emergency room because he doesn't have the same legal protections that a heterosexual parent would.
"What state interest is served by weakening the families of these children?" he said. "The state ought to work to protect (their) stability."
Participants on both sides also fretted about the economic impact of such an amendment.
While opponents said they were concerned that Wisconsin would appear narrow-minded and drive business away from the state, proponents said they feared acceptance of same-sex marriages might be forced on business owners.
Melissa Wolfgram of Butler said that as a business owner who doesn't agree with homosexuality, she wouldn't want to be required to give benefits to an employee who happens to be part of a same-sex marriage.
"If we allow homosexuals to marry, business and the economy will be affected," Wolfgram said. "What's going to happen when Christians like my husband and I decide to leave Wisconsin?"
Some choice quotes:
If we don't have the institution of marriage, then anything goes
Well, see, gays DON'T have the institution of marriage. And they want it. So, um, where's your problem? Look to the divorce rate first, okay? Then tackle adultery and fornication. When you've done that, THEN you can whine about gay marriage.
...comments on subjects ranging from the church's role in recognizing same-sex marriage
Excuse me? Church? Um. What? Isn't this about the LAW? You know, the government?
"The Ten Commandments say to honor your father and mother," Kerry Drake of Plymouth told the committee. "That's impossible to do in a gay marriage."
*cracks up laughing*
I won't even comment. Please, everyone, post your favorite quote from the Bible that either 1. contradicts that or 2. this person almost certainly doesn't follow. Or, if you're ambitious, use another religious text. Anything goes!
"The courts used that opportunity to rewrite their laws to include marriage of persons of the same sex and not just of the opposite sex," Gundrum told the committee. "Liberal attorneys in black robes struck down 200 years of common law and tradition in that state in brazen fashion."
Gundrum, you get to be the lucky person who looks up the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority". Yes, the same thing that allowed slavery and Jim Crow laws to persist. Tyranny of the Majority.
Melissa Wolfgram of Butler said that as a business owner who doesn't agree with homosexuality, she wouldn't want to be required to give benefits to an employee who happens to be part of a same-sex marriage.
I wouldn't want to be required to give days off to people who celebrate holidays which I do not observe, but I'd do it anyway. It's called common courtesy.
"If we allow homosexuals to marry, business and the economy will be affected," Wolfgram said. "What's going to happen when Christians like my husband and I decide to leave Wisconsin?"
*dies laughing* Oh, boo-hoo. First off, it's "my husband and ME". Secondly (and not a nitpicky point this time), I really doubt there'd be a mass exodus. Those leaving would probably equal the number of those entering. I really doubt there's going to be the huge depression she predicts on the basis of this.
Five bucks says that gays are allowed to marry and she doesn't even move to another city, let alone another state.
It should be depressing, but the sillies are so very, very stupid in their comments. If they can't even come up with a decent argument....
Oh, and thanks go to
xmorningxrosex for the post!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 03:30 pm (UTC)If we don't have the institution of marriage, then anything goes
That reminds me of the people who say that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then we'll have to allow bigamy, adultery, people to have sex with goats, and so on. so ridiculous.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 03:36 pm (UTC)Well, they can't. They have no logical grounds for this bullshit. The depressing part is that anybody listens to them.
*goes off to look at cute SF pictures*
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 03:53 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 03:53 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 04:19 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 04:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 06:20 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 06:25 pm (UTC)What's going to happen when Christians like I start leaving the state?
What's going to happen when Christians like me start leaving the state?
It's me, not I.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 09:53 pm (UTC)I really enjoyed that book.
Just replying to this comment and not to Uly's post because, well, she pretty much covered all of the comments I would have made and all I can do is nod in agreement.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 04:11 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 05:54 am (UTC)Their logic is not of this earth. >_
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 09:25 pm (UTC)what's this many you're talking about? If you mean utah then that's not a many that's a some. And the problem with those people isn't the polygamy, its their attitude towards women.
For those of us who are polyamorous, honesty is absolutely important. If they do at some point make multiple marriages legal then the first thing to put in it is that no one can get married again without all other current partners being notified and signing off on it. And each additional spouse would have to be informed about all previous and sign off on that knowledge too. Paperwork would be a bitch but it would certainly be worth it in my opinion. Anyways.......if you want to know more check out the lj community polyamory. I've learned a lot there.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 09:54 pm (UTC)Polygamy is one husband with many wives. Many of the people who practice polygamy do NOT practice this with consenting adults. Not all, certainly, but many.
Polyandry is one wife with many husbands. Not very well known.
Polyamory, afaik, is more than two people mutually married to each other, say three people, each of whom has two spouses. A similar polygamous setup would have a man with two spouses and two women with one spouse each.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 01:00 pm (UTC)Yeah, and if you were REALLY that concerned about 200 years of tradition, you'd be strict Amish. Let's see these people give up their modern comforts before they start in on traditions.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 05:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 03:30 pm (UTC)If we don't have the institution of marriage, then anything goes
That reminds me of the people who say that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then we'll have to allow bigamy, adultery, people to have sex with goats, and so on. so ridiculous.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 03:36 pm (UTC)Well, they can't. They have no logical grounds for this bullshit. The depressing part is that anybody listens to them.
*goes off to look at cute SF pictures*
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 03:53 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 03:53 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 04:19 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 04:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 06:20 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 06:25 pm (UTC)What's going to happen when Christians like I start leaving the state?
What's going to happen when Christians like me start leaving the state?
It's me, not I.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 09:53 pm (UTC)I really enjoyed that book.
Just replying to this comment and not to Uly's post because, well, she pretty much covered all of the comments I would have made and all I can do is nod in agreement.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 04:11 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 05:54 am (UTC)Their logic is not of this earth. >_
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 09:25 pm (UTC)what's this many you're talking about? If you mean utah then that's not a many that's a some. And the problem with those people isn't the polygamy, its their attitude towards women.
For those of us who are polyamorous, honesty is absolutely important. If they do at some point make multiple marriages legal then the first thing to put in it is that no one can get married again without all other current partners being notified and signing off on it. And each additional spouse would have to be informed about all previous and sign off on that knowledge too. Paperwork would be a bitch but it would certainly be worth it in my opinion. Anyways.......if you want to know more check out the lj community polyamory. I've learned a lot there.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 09:54 pm (UTC)Polygamy is one husband with many wives. Many of the people who practice polygamy do NOT practice this with consenting adults. Not all, certainly, but many.
Polyandry is one wife with many husbands. Not very well known.
Polyamory, afaik, is more than two people mutually married to each other, say three people, each of whom has two spouses. A similar polygamous setup would have a man with two spouses and two women with one spouse each.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 01:00 pm (UTC)Yeah, and if you were REALLY that concerned about 200 years of tradition, you'd be strict Amish. Let's see these people give up their modern comforts before they start in on traditions.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 05:36 am (UTC)