You say that the amendment wouldn't have far-reaching consequences.
The problem is, despite the claims made by Fitzgerald and others, the second sentence doesn't refer to the quantity of benefits, it refers to the type of relationship being recognized. So, for example, to sign up with the d.p. registry in Madison (a precondition for allowing my partner soft benefits such as library priveleges through my employer, the University), we had to prove to Madison that our relationship is substantially similar to that of a married couple (sharing a lease, a morgage, car payments, lifelong committment, and so forth). These requirements for enrollment would, if the amendment passes, become unconstitutional, and thus, would invalidate Madison's current programming. Similar reasoning shows that Milwaukee and Madison and the LaCrosse School District would have to get rid of their policies providing lesbian and gay employees with equal benefits compensation.
You can bet that the Alliance Defense Fund can't wait to sue the City of Madison. What a victory that would be for them! And if the amendment passes, it's easy to see how they could win.
It's a shame when people use their Constitution to deny the rights of individuals. As that is what this amendment seeks to do, it should be viewed as abhorrent, and this should be the case regardless of your substantive views on the subject.
The only problem is that the definition of "marriage" as it has been understood for all of humanity is now being twisted around by unelected judges with no constituency.
You may believe that our current form of marriage is the best form of marriage, but you cannot honestly believe that the current definition has been consistent throughout history.
Marriage used to be primarily about property rights and combining families. It was frequently polygamous, and it was frequently arranged. To make this claim shows a lack of historical perspective. That does not mean that our current form of marriage isn't a good idea, but relying on tradition to justify that position is illogical.
I agree with you that much of the rhetoric paraded out by democrats on this issue is idiotic. Besides the point I made in the first paragraph about the purpose of Constituions, I have one other major point.
Conservatives, on this issue, are in the position of stripping away a right. If you are going to deprive people of a right, I would like to hear a more convincing reason than simple tradition. To my mind, no conservative has ever answered this question in a satisfactory manner. I would like to hear about some demonstrable harm that is being inflicted. I would like to know how traditional marriage will possibly be affected by this.
I am married. If homosexuals suddenly started marrying in droves it would have no affect on my life whatsoever. I maintain that if this is not true for someone, if their marriage will be degraded somehow in this situation, that their marriage as currently constituted is currently a failure.
My homepage link on that last comment isn't working. This one should be fixed.
Current law mean spirited? That's ridiculous. The referendum question isn't about current law, it's about this discriminatory proposed amendment--a new law. Your questions are ludicrous. This amendment is wrong, and what a stretch to try and say "does this mean current law is mean sprited?" Maybe I got on a blog for children. Perhaps I should double check next time. And as for the two legislators changing their votes in opposition to "their constituents' wishes," what if their constituents wanted to vote in favor of a law that legalizes slavery again? Those legislators would be expected to do as they have with this proposed amendment: the right thing. Catholics need to clean up their own house before dictating what others' rights should be. They need to worry more about keeping their priests' hands off children. No church should be dictating what legislators should do anyway, so who cares what the Catholics want? Give me a break. Do you have any real or sensible reasoning behind supporting this amendment of discrimination? You've failed miserably here.
Commenting by HaloScan
