Yesterday's Debates

Yesterday morning on the Joy Cardin show, attorney Lester Pines argued the "no" side of the ban against Christopher Wolfe, professor of political science at Marquette University. You can listen to that debate here.

And in Green Bay last night, Mike Tate and Julaine Appling debated the civil unions and marriage ban for an hour. I don't need to tell you who I thought won. WisPolitics.com sponsored (and covered) the debate; later in the week they will webcast it for all to see. Asking the questions were Jeff Mayers from WisPolitics, Joanne Zipperer of the Green Bay Press Gazette and WPR's Patty Murray.

Unfortunately, it wasn't exactly open to the public. The only way Appling's Vote Yes for Marriage group would agree to debate was if the audience was limited to 25 people from each side. But, as best as I could tell (and I could tell because I was greeting folks at the door) every person who came was on our side. The "yes" side seemed to have no one in attendance. It's a shame that by closing it off to the public, the people who most need to hear the debate-- undecided voters--couldn't be there.

5 Comments:

At 9:30 AM, Blogger Kevin said...

"This isn't about gay rights," Appling said. "It's about whether or not the state of Wisconsin values the institution of marriage and the good it provides. ... It's about children needing moms and dads."

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!

If her whole agenda on getting this passed is because she feels that children needs a mother and a father, she really is looking through a straw.

Why aren't they getting referendums passed that will stop mothers from having four kids from four different fathers or a father having four kids from four different mothers?

Gay couples have the income to support and give the children a great life.

Geez...I am getting so pissed at her. She needs to take care of worse problems for children than wether or not Heather has two mommies or daddies.

Another thing, if you are against gay marriage and support civil unions, then don't say you will vote yes. VOTE NO!!! Read the second sentence, that will take out the idea of civil unions.

Sorry, I need to vent.

 
At 10:56 AM, Blogger Mike Fitzpatrick said...

Julaine and ban supporters don't want big audiences at "secular" venues hearing some of the whoppers she offers in support of her position.

I think the biggest "whoa there" moment of the Green Bay debate came when Julaine said Mike Tate's repeated assertion that gay marriage was already illegal in Wisconsin was "patently false." Does she really think gay couples somehow can get legally hitched here?

I incuded the full quote and offered its context in the Quest story online this morning at: http://www.quest-online.com/NewFiles/Quest_Newsroom_56.html

 
At 9:18 PM, Anonymous Rob said...

Of course they don't want an audience. The truth might get out and they might get their agenda exposed for what it really is. They want to be the "voice" of everyone because they know what is right. It's one of the conservative rights calling cards, they want their voice heard and noone else.

 
At 2:47 AM, Blogger Floating Heads said...

OK, here's my only issue with our Vote No campaign ... one I believe in strongly. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting no on the ballot.

HOWEVER...

The whole damn thing is confusing. Vote No is negative advertising,, which is not very effective, to be honest. (Yes, I did mention this at a meeting way back when this was getting underway.) Especially, when the opposition is voting "yes" for marriage. Yes sounds so much better to the uninformed voter.

We need to make sure people understand that no is a good thing to people. I don't know how, since we gave ourselves this odd position.

No More.
No Way.
No Discrimination In Any Way.
Vote No in November.

There. That's the best slogan I can come up with for the haters and the confused.Is anyone else worried about this?

 
At 5:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some responses...

Question: "Why aren't they getting referendums passed that will stop mothers from having four kids from four different fathers or a father having four kids from four different mothers?"

Answer: Protecting marriage between one man and one woman is suppose to accomplish that. Society promotes the optimale situation in hopes that people will go towards that, and not have multiple children with multiple people. However, marriage has been taking a beating for many years, and this is just one more attempt to devalue that institution.


Question: "I think the biggest "whoa there" moment of the Green Bay debate came when Julaine said Mike Tate's repeated assertion that gay marriage was already illegal in Wisconsin was "patently false." Does she really think gay couples somehow can get legally hitched here?"

Answer: Of course she doesn't. But considering the wording of our statute is the same as Massachusetts was she is definitely saying that it is not safe from attack. Also, if it truly is already illegal, why bother trying to stop an amendment that makes it illegal?

Question: "Why not open it up more?"

Answer: I have been to some "open debates" and usually the Q&A from the "diverse" crowd is nothing more than preplanned recitations, rather than questions. Plus in general which side do you think is more "fiery" about this issue? The people who live the lifestyle that only 2% of the country does? Or the people that have known marriage the way it was from the beginning, "between a man and a woman." Maybe it's not as easy to get people "over excited" about maintaining the status quo. I certainly know alot of families that agree whole heartedly with marriage being between a man and a woman... however there reasoning is, "well duh? how else could it be?" Those people aren't very likely to travel distances or spend time away from their kids to go here someon argue about something that is so fundamentally true that it would be rediculous to think otherwise.

Question: "Why the negative, "Vote No" side?"

Answer: How else could it be worded? The amendment passed both houses, and the amendment says "Marriage is between one man and one woman." The only way you could vote yes, would be to agree with that statement. I don't understand how you could "manipulate" that to mean the opposite.

Signed,
Someone with a different viewpoint

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website