I think Owen's response and rebuttal are fair representations of the intentions of the authors of the amendment. At least the intentions that the authors WANT us to imply.Really, it all comes down to two words: "substantially similar."Not: "completely identical."Owen and Julaine and others on the YES side tend to argue as if the wording said "completely identical," i.e. marriage by any other name.But that is NOT what the amendment says.It doesn't even say "substatially identical" or "completely similar." If it did, there would be room for thoughtful people to believe that the 2nd sentence merely prohibits Wisconsin's elected reps from granting us Vermont-style civil unions.But "subtantially" and "similar?" Puh-leeze! These double words have so many double meanings, that Fair Wisconsin is clearly correct. This amendment is far-reaching and the precise distance of that "far" is very very nebulous.
In this round of the battle of the bloggers, we are also talking around a crucial element. Jenna, might you queue it up for a follow-up?Ingrid and Owen acknowledge that Wisconsinites are overwhelming in our support for civil unions.The disagreement could be in exactly what sort of civil union Wisconsinites support. But no one has really been discussing that, even though it is clearly going to be everyone's NEXT STEP on November 8th, no matter which way the wind blows on November 7th.I tend to agree with Julaine Appling's words that it's all about the word "marriage." (I don't think her words square with her beliefs, but only God can judge that.)Folks like my mother, and like me in fact, want very deeply to preserve the word "marriage" for a sacramental union of a man and a woman.But we would also agree with the majorities in Vermont and Connecticut and California and the UK and Germany and France. Gay and Lesbian folks deserve all the legal rights, and should be held accountable for all the civil responsibilities to which Strait folks account.Notice how the places that call same-sex unions "marriage" have all the legal wrangling and publicity: Canada, Massachussetts, Spain.But the places that have granted us rights and responsibilities without the word "marriage" are relatively free from chaos. The French take to the streets all the time, but when's the last you heard of Pierre protesting the civil union between Jean-Philippe and Sebastien?
Why can't the ballott say, in simple words;I favor marriage between 1 man and 1 woman only. (yes) or (no).check one.................... Is there anything in the above words that no one understands?
Post a Comment