Blog Debate: My Rebuttal to Question 2
Now for my rebuttal to Owen's response. Again, we only have 250 words here, which means a sprint from beginning to end.
Owen cites the Massachusetts example and claims the same thing will absolutely happen here if we don’t amend our constitution. My own answer addresses this concern. But as we've been saying, this ban is about so much more than marriage. This isn't a referendum on judges in Massachusetts. This is about families in Wisconsin.
The effects of the ban will be felt most immediately and concretely by lesbian and gay families. Most married couples won't know the difference. Gay couples won't only be stigmatized; they will also lose the hope of civil unions--even ten or twenty years from now. And the current legal arrangements of all unmarried couples will be jeopardized.
When thinking about the ban’s legal effects, voters need to weigh all of this.
Now, two additional points:
If the State of Wisconsin wants to extend insurance coverage to anyone who cohabitates, then that’s fine, but it would also have to include unmarried couples and roommates who are cohabitating . . .Domestic partner policies--whether through cities like Madison and Milwaukee (pdf), or private employers--require couples to demonstrate a shared life together. Sometimes, that means they must sign an affadavit and prove they share finances (bank accounts, leases). In other words, they must demonstrate their long-term commitment and the marriage-like nature of their relationship. These policies are not intended for sisters or roommates: we’re talking about committed couples. Relationships between committed couples--gay or straight--are nothing like those between siblings or roommates.
I ardently oppose civil marriage being redefined by a court instead of through a representative process.A “yes” vote stops the representative process from taking place. If we believe lawmakers should decide, then we should let them--now and in the future.