Polling the Conservative Bloggers

Most of our regular readers know that last week conservative radio host Charlie Sykes wrote that he remains undecided on the ban. Now Sykes has announced a poll:
How do local conservative bloggers stand on the proposed constitutional amedment banning gay marriage?
And the Wisconsin conservative blogosphere has risen to the challenge, posting prolifically on the civil unions and marriage ban—so prolifically that this post will no doubt fail to catch it all. If we’re missing anything, please let us know in a comment.

In the still-undecided or not-yet-pronounced category:

Jib writes:
If government wants to endorse civil unions that run parallel to marriage as defined and supported by churches/synagogues/mosques/etc, I'm fine with that …
(Sounds to me like what I propose calling "second-sentence opposition.")

Rick at Shark and Shepard (scroll down for the several entries on this topic) has been posting about his opposition to extending civil marriage to gay couples. But some of his posts at the same time seem to express second-sentence opposition.

And Peter at Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger notes that he remains undecided. (How can we bring you on board Peter? Let us know...)

In the for or leaning-for category:

Dad29 warns of a slippery slope and, elsewhere in his blog, uses language about gay people that would make my mother want to reach for the soap. (Why does he focus his objections so exclusively on gay men? I’m feeling a little left out here.)

And Owen at Boots and Sabers says here why he leans for.

And in the no-on-the-ban category:


Larry at Gibbsville writes:
A constitutional amendment is going overboard. Wisconsin statutes already define marriage to be between a husband and wife. The amendment goes beyond this, declaring that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and anything remotely similar is not to be recognized in this state. The wording, and the motivation behind it, appears to be nothing more than discrimination…
Ragnar at I Am the Force argues with more passion about the issue than most gay folks I know:
Again, extending equal protection of the law to my gay neighbors will do nothing to threaten real marriage or the dark place in Glenn Grothman's head. It simply doesn't hurt any of you to leave people alone to live their lives as they wish.
Chris over at Spotted Horse writes:
I am going to Vote No on this I will try and convince, as many people as I can to vote No and I will hope in November the majority will side with me. Easy for me to say I don’t have anything to lose in this fight. Other than someday my group may be the one society has decided to shove around. If I don’t stand up for this, do I deserve to have someone stand up for me when it’s my turn in the center of the ring?
Ann Althouse weighs in again and reiterates that “the amendment as written is alienating to centrists.”

The Sceptic Eclectic asks:
Once we have made the constitution a document that picks policy preferences it would be fair to ask what preferences we would like to include next. It would be fair to ask what other disfavored groups will next be targeted for constitutional disenfranchisement?
Elliot at From Where I Sit writes:
But, 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.
And Random10, who opposes extending civil marriage to gay couples, nevertheless voices strong opposition to the ban:
Marriage should remain marriage, but if we are a society based on the idea that individual rights are the source of just governance, then there needs to be legitimate alternatives to marriage. Achieving valid recognition of the rights of non-married couples will require rewriting existing laws but that is preferable to partisan gamesmanship with our constitution.
Thanks for all the (mostly) civil discussion, guys (and Ann). I, for one, am looking forward to more.


Tags: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website