I’ll be voting against Wisconsin’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment.

March 4th, 2006

Surprised?

You probably figured my dislike for Brokeback Mountain (as illustrated here and here) means I dislike gay people.

I don’t.

I’ve actually been hit on by a few men in my time and I was always flattered.

(Though that one guy totally blew my chances with the girl I was talking to.)

And I understand that many people who are in favor of the amendment aren’t anti-gay, buy viagra find they’re pro-marriage.

But, pills to tell you the truth, I just don’t see how a gay couple getting married diminishes the value of a straight couple’s commitment.

In fact, I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.

Let the state issue civil union licenses that can be used for procurring insurance, inheritance rights, etc…to both gay and straight couples and leave the marriage pronouncements where they belong: with the priests and ministers.

In the end, I’m with Republican state representative Gregg Underheim ‚Äì constitutions are about securing rights, not restricting them.

So, just like him, I’ll be voting against the amendment when I get the chance.

Entry Filed under: Milwaukee,Philosophy,Politics,Why I'm not really a conservative

12 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Dean  |  March 4th, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    Me, too.

  • 2. Aaron  |  March 4th, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Ditto.

  • 3. Administrator  |  March 4th, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Being on the same side with you actually makes me feel pretty good, Dean.

  • 4. Administrator  |  March 4th, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    On the other hand, being on the same side as Aaron makes me rethink my whole position. ;)

  • 5. Chris  |  March 4th, 2006 at 10:51 pm

    I dont think this is going to the the cakewalk a lot of people on the right think its going to be

    Put me on the list as a no vote.

    This state has a lot of real problems to solve Gay Marriage isnt one of them.

  • 6. Tim Rock  |  March 5th, 2006 at 10:38 am

    I have been quick at times to criticize the right on this subject, and I have been wrong to do so. However, there is one thing that I think needs to be mentioned (and I’m only asking for comment)…Don’t you think that this entire farce is merely being used to increase base turnout in the election. I’m betting there are many in the know who could care less whether this amendment passes or not.

  • 7. Administrator  |  March 5th, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    I think political manuevering is definitely part of it.

    But no one ever said politics were pretty. (On either side.)

    However, I do think there are a lot of religious people who consider homosexual behavior to be a sin and marriage to be a sacrament. Those folks are for the amendment on principle. (One I understand, but don’t agree with.) That’s one of the reasons why I think we need to seperate the legal status of “marriage” from the reilgious meaning.

  • 8. Wm. Clement  |  March 5th, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    I’m torn as to how to vote. I guess I won’t know for sure till the day comes.

  • 9. Dean  |  March 5th, 2006 at 11:59 pm

    Again I agree with Elliot, Tim. To say politics were not involved would be naive. Many feel it worked to energize the base in those states that had it on the ballot in ’04. They hope it will happen again.

    But as a so-called fundamentalist Christian myself, I know a lot of folks who are potential proponents of this amendment. They are concerned. Concerned that a way of life they feel is good is passing away and a lot of unhealthy values are taking over.

    I don’t entirely think they are wrong; I just don’t believe this amendment (or even the political process) is the way for Christians to “reach the world.”

  • 10. Peter  |  March 6th, 2006 at 7:43 am

    I understand everyones reluctance to support the ammendment. It seems to me that the Gay/Lesbian coalition spent a lot of time and effort getting all of us to except the fact that they are different and live alternative lifestyles.
    Now they are asking us to accept the notion that they are the same. Quite frankly I don’t think the majority of Americans are willing to accept that notion.
    I think the argument boils down to wanting to have the same rights as “married couples”. Are they looking to taking the easy approach to equality?
    In other words, is it against the law to have health insurance cover a same sex significant other, or do insurance companies just hide behind that notion? Why isn’t there an insurance company that caters to the gay/lesbian population?
    Can’t a lot of the rights they seek be conferred with some simple changes? Say changing “spouse” to “significant other”.
    I agree that same sex couples should have equal ability to some of the benefits of married couples. I just don’t think pretending to be the same is the way to do it.

  • 11. Aaron  |  March 6th, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    Say changing “spouse??? to “significant other???.

    I think spouse is a neutral enough word, which is why gays really ought to give up the fight for the word “marriage” and focus on the real prize. Most legal documents say “spouse.” Gain acceptance for that and you’ve nearly won.

  • 12. From Where I Sit » &hellip  |  April 4th, 2006 at 11:17 am

    […] In fact, I found an ad for valium attached to my post about voting against the gay marriage amendment. (I thought that was sort of an appropriate match of ad to topic, actually.) […]

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

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