For the record…

November 7th, 2006

I voted “no” on the gay marriage amendment.

But I almost voted “yes” because I was so disgusted by the deceptive tactics used by the anti-amendment forces.

Entry Filed under: Politics

6 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Clint  |  November 7th, 2006 at 11:23 am

    The deceptive ads are the exact reason that I changed my vote from a no to a yes.

    As of last week I was just going to abstain, but after all of the misleading robo-calls, I decided to vote yes.

  • 2. Nick  |  November 7th, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    Frankly I think both sides had a share in confusing the issue and making very disingenuous arguments. Patrick McIlheran for instance talked out of both sides of his moth so often when blogged about gay marriage that I wondered how he could keep his arguments straight.

  • 3. Administrator  |  November 7th, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    I’m gonna have to ask for an example of that, Nick.

    I can’t imagine the two sides were comparable.

    The “anti” side said several things that just weren’t true:

    1.) The amendment wasn’t necessary because marriage is already defined as being between a man and a woman. (But they knew that judges elsewhere were using equal protection clauses to declare such laws unconstitutional. And if they really believed the law already definitely prohibited gay marriages than why would they care if the amendment passed? By definition it would change nothing.)

    2.) Those TV commercials and phone calls that purposefully tried to portray a “no” vote as protecting the status quo. That was just despicable.

  • 4. Nick  |  November 7th, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    First of all… a No vote is for the status quo. While you can argue that judges MIGHT overrule that fact… they haven’t in Wisconsin. That’s the fear, but its not a lie, and certainly doesn’t rise to the level of being despicable.

    Some of the arguments that the other side made that I thought were wrong, and or just silly were:

    1. Arguing that you should vote for the amendment because it will be cheaper… in other words you don’t want to give gay spouses benefits. Then arguing that that companies can give benefits today if they wanted to (which actually isn’t always true… trust me… I work in an insurance company). Not only that, but then complaining about benefits to domestic partners, when the main driving force behind that is the fact that gay couples can’t get married!

    2. I’ve found the arguments against the “second sentence” to be rather deceptive too, much along the lines of #1. We don’t mind if gay people setup all these legal documents so they can get benefits, or power of attorney, or this or that or the other thing, but we don’t want “civil unions”, which pretty much is just one document that accomplishes the same as all those others.

    But if you want to argue that the Fair Wisconsin ads talking about how the No vote would leave the status quo was bad, what about the ad with the small kid talking about Adam and Eve? That was just… I don’t know what to say.

  • 5. Administrator  |  November 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    “First of all‚Ķ a No vote is for the status quo.”

    Ahhh, but so is a “yes” vote.

    I respect your opinion in general, but I’m sorry, the level of deception and purposeful confusion of the issues was much higher on the anti-side. And if the amendment fails to pass, we’ll have another discussion when those people who said “no” meant “no change” are in court challenging the current law.

  • 6. Nick  |  November 7th, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    Actually a Yes vote is not for the status quo. A yes vote would specifically disallow the legislature to create a “civil union” structure which is seperate from marriage, but which many people would like to see. In fact, one could argue that a Yes vote makes raises the bar for what it would take if the people would like to see gay marriage made legal, because now a law would have to be crafted, and an amenment repealed. Which sort of counters the argument that many “Yes” people were arguing that “If gay marriage is allowed, it should be decided by the legislature and not a judge”.

    It cuts both ways. In general I found the entire debate to be very very strange. I also noticed a lot of Yes people bending over backwards trying not to say “I just don’t like gay people” while a lot of “No” people were bending over backwards to say that the amendment is bigoted and homophobic.

    I think the fact that you didn’t see a lot of that attitude thrown around is actually comendable, and something nobody is talking much about. I’m sure those sorts of arguments were made, but I’m happily surprised by how little.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta