# Wisconsin to become the next State to protect a word. Marriage. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 29, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198 "2005-11-29T14:04:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/1 "2005-11-29T14:04:51Z")
In a couple of hours, 9 AM exactly, there will be a hearing in the State Capitol to help lawmkers decide how to vote regarding changing the language in the state constitution to ban same sex marriage. [Gay marriage fight heats up.](http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=63089&ntpid=6) > [@](#): > > “We really believe the issue will be won or lost at the grass-roots level,” said Julaine Appling, executive director of the pro-amendment **Family** Research Institute of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage. (note the useage of the word _family_ and how [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) defines it; A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place. All the members of a household under one roof. ) Ironic? > [@](#): > > “It protects the word marriage, and it protects the institution of marriage,” Appling said. From the opposition; > [@](#): > > Last year, the city of Madison and Dane County released opinions from their lawyers saying the amendment could bar them from offering health insurance to domestic partners. > > Joshua Freker, spokesman for the gay rights group Action Wisconsin that opposes the amendment, said opponents believe the amendment could have an even further reach than that. > > In Michigan, the attorney general issued a legal opinion that a similar amendment bars public employers from offering domestic partner benefits. In Ohio, a judge ruled an amendment there prohibits the filing of domestic violence charges against unmarried people. I can’t think straight this morning, Birthday pary last night. But I wanted to throw this out there for those of you who may want to share your thoughts on these issues. Being more of pit topic than a debate, I thought it should go here. So, the party in favor of the ammendment just want to protect the definition of marriage? Seems like a worthy effort… They don’t realise that in doing so they may are actually restricting the rights of other fellow Americans (they do, of course)? Just to protect a definition? What benefit will this ammendment have on the non-gay community? None. What affect will it have on the gay community? How 'bout basic human rights for starters. Sorry, too foggy to come up with any vitriol, or clever slams, hence I throw it out to you people. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/2 "2005-11-29T14:17:09Z")
When I moved from Wisconsin in 2000 after 26 years of living there I thought it was a very progressive state. Now I live in one of the most reactionary states in the country, yet somehow I find that Wisconsin is catching up. That’s too bad. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/3 "2005-11-29T14:33:59Z")
New state motto: **Backward** ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/4 "2005-11-29T14:38:02Z")
Wisconsin is sort of disparate that way. Some of the strictest anti-abortion laws on the books (not enforced because of R v Wade), state laws that protect churches from being sued (so the Catholic church is immune to suits from molestation cases here) on the one hand. On the other, we re-elect Russ Feingold as our Senator (Yay!) ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/5 "2005-11-29T14:42:30Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > New state motto: **Backward** I guess the prefer it to: **From Behind**. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/6 "2005-11-29T15:10:04Z")
Well, I live in Georgia, where we’re used to being on the other end of “what a backward state!” comments. A similar amendment passed here in 2004. I’ve actually seen letters to the editor that say things like “If gays are allowed to marry, then my 24-year marriage will become meaningless!” Don’t really understand how that works. It’s amazing how many people are stirred to activism to prevent two guys from being able to marry each other. They’re not worked up over _actual_ threats to marriages and families – job insecurity, lack of affordable health care, widening income gap, all the things that are hurting, and actually shrinking, the middle class – but somehow the spectre of gay marriage is an urgent problem. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/7 "2005-11-29T15:40:39Z")
I wonder if **Otto** is at that hearing…he’s from Madtown. ---
**Author:** ![August\_West](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/august_west/32/18069_2.png) [@August\_West](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/August_West)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/8 "2005-11-29T16:03:59Z")
What is strange is that this amendment really isn’t necessary, as Wisconsin state law already defines marriage as being “between a man and a woman”. So why do we need to further codify it into the state Constitution? To make it doubleplus ungood? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/9 "2005-11-29T16:34:21Z")
> [@August West](#): > > What is strange is that this amendment really isn’t necessary, as Wisconsin state law already defines marriage as being “between a man and a woman”. > > So why do we need to further codify it into the state Constitution? To make it doubleplus ungood? A state law can be overturned by state courts, if the state courts conclude that the state constitution requires the state to recognize same-sex marriage. This happened in Alaska, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. A state constitutional amendment prevents the courts from reaching that decision: it declares unequivocally that the state constitution does NOT require recognition of same-sex marriage. Voters in Alaska and Hawaii quickly adopted state constitutional amendments following the state court decisions, and same-sex marriage was never actually in place there. In Massachusetts, the constitution cannot be amended so quickly - it requires two successive votes from the state legislature, and then a public vote. Last term, the state legislature voted for an amendment banning same-sex marriage for the first of the required times. This term, it appears that they won’t follow suit, but may instead adopt a no-marriage-but-yes-civil-union policy similar to Vermont. Or they may simply leave the existing scheme in place, as it doesn’t appear to have wrought too much destruction on the moral fiber of society. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/10 "2005-11-29T18:34:28Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > I wonder if **Otto** is at that hearing…he’s from Madtown. My state representative is gay (as are my city alder, my county board member and my Congresswoman); I never get to lobby on gay issues because all my representatives agree with me on everything. So no, I slept in. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/11 "2005-11-29T19:16:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In Massachusetts, the constitution cannot be amended so quickly - it requires two successive votes from the state legislature, and then a public vote. Last term, the state legislature voted for an amendment banning same-sex marriage for the first of the required times. This term, it appears that they won’t follow suit, but may instead adopt a no-marriage-but-yes-civil-union policy similar to Vermont. Why do I waste my time trying to inform you? :rolleyes: The second MA legislative session (held with an intervening election, as required), held as a Constitutional Convention, voted the amendment proposal _down_, very heavily, with a large number of former Yes voters publicly recanting and even apologizing for their first-round votes. The pro-discrimination faction is trying to get a no-marriage, no-civil-unions-either-whatever-the-hell-those-are amendment on the 2006 ballot via referendum, but it’s not at all clear they have the necessary signatures (there’ve been stories about signers realizing they’d been tricked). It’s even less clear that it could pass, now that SSM is in place in MA with no visible repercussions in society. Trivia time: The Massachusetts Constitution is the oldest functioning constitution in the world. It was originally written almost singlehandedly by John Adams. Bummer about Wisconsin - looks like you’re seeing the initial backlash to a pending change, which can be followed after perhaps not too long a time with the back-backlash and then the change. Denial and anger sometimes have to come before acceptance. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/12 "2005-11-29T19:52:56Z")
Here in VA, a Presbyterian minister has taken his church out of the marriage business all together in a protest over the unequal treatment of straight and gay couples. [http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD\_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768365641](http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768365641) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/13 "2005-11-29T20:55:24Z")
Mawwiage. Mawwiage is wot tears us apart… today. Marriage, that terrifying awangement, that bad gay dweam within a bad gay dweam… ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/14 "2005-11-29T21:59:34Z")
It really irks me how all of these conservative organizations have such “homespun” names. Family this, America that…it’s both sinister AND annoying. Why not just call themselves the Intelligently Designed Patriotic Family Christian American Morality Defense and Research Group? Much easier. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Big\_Cheese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8baadc/32.png) [@The\_Big\_Cheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Big_Cheese)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/15 "2005-11-29T22:50:47Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > My state representative is gay (as are my city alder, my county board member and my Congresswoman); I never get to lobby on gay issues because all my representatives agree with me on everything. So no, I slept in. And don’t forget your lesbian Native American Indian Fire Chief. And one of the 3 finalists for Police Chief was a lesbian Buddhist. An African-American won that one though. ---
**Author:** ![furlibusea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@furlibusea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furlibusea)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/16 "2005-11-29T23:21:43Z")
On the way to school this morning, I listened to the lady from the “Family Research Institute” on Wisconsin Public Radio this morning discussing this amendment. She was talking some crap about how it is better for children to be brought up with one mother and one father who are married. I wanted to scream. (Actually I think I did, some mornings it is best that I drive alone.) I wanted to explain to her that there are lots of things that are better for children that she should be dealing with. It would be better if one of my students hadn’t seen his father kill his mother. It would be better if another had a single living male relative who wasn’t in jail. It would be far better if another hadn’t fathered two children and showed up in class more than once a week, and mostly he does that to collect his bus pass and sell drugs. It might help if another of my students hadn’t been raped in two of her last foster homes. Fuck you to the sanctimonious bitch and her associates. She isn’t trying to help children. I got to tell you for most of my students any kind of stable enviroment would be a huge improvement, and frankly I am not seeing a constitutional amendment against fucked up home lives or poverty. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/17 "2005-11-29T23:29:58Z")
Well, to these people a house where Heather has two mommies IS a fucked-up household. ---
**Author:** ![ArrMatey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrmatey/32/3522_2.png) [@ArrMatey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArrMatey)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/18 "2005-11-30T01:41:39Z")
So… Uhm… Any word on this? Pass? Fail? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/19 "2005-11-30T03:17:01Z")
It was just a hearing. No vote was taken. The proposal, though, already passed last session and is expected to pass this session and go to the voters in November 2006. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198/20 "2005-11-30T14:20:45Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > It was just a hearing. No vote was taken. The proposal, though, already passed last session and is expected to pass this session and go to the voters in November 2006. And not soon enough! Them damned fags was starting to think they was human! This’ll show 'em. -Joe [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-to-become-the-next-state-to-protect-a-word-marriage/333198.md?page=2)