Green Bay Only Takes "No" for an Answer

Editorial boards at papers across the state are starting to weigh in on the civil unions and marriage ban. Tomorrow we'll give a full rundown on what papers are saying-- but the large majority are urging a "No" vote.

One paper that did NOT ask for that "No" vote, however, was the Green Bay Press Gazette. You can read the October 20 editorial here.

Well. Readers reacted, and today the Press Gazette published 12 letters from area citizens who strongly disagreed with their position.

William Brennan:
The Press-Gazette's official endorsement of the gay-marriage amendment is a depressing, if expected, development.
Laura Westwood:
Our Constitution is meant to protect, not prohibit, the rights of minorities. In this country, we protect those who hold different religious views; we protect those who want to own firearms; and we protect those who speak out against our government.
Stacey Crease:
As a new parent, I wish many things for my son, including the chance to grow up in a state that treats its citizens fairly.
Katina Daanen:
Am I to understand that people who want to be married, provide for their families and protect their loved ones are a threat to my marriage? That this amendment will contribute to family fragmentation?
Colleen Plumb:
The institution of marriage is under attack from within, not from gays. Gay marriage is not the biggest problem facing our society. Don't be sidetracked by this non-issue in the voting booth.
Rev. Charles Mize:
Gay and lesbian Americans are respected, contributing members of our society. They have great kids. They face the challenges that all of our families face. In substance and spirit, they uphold the most sacred family values of our culture: care, respect, kindness, nurture and faithfulness.
Ellen Rosewall:
If we are attempting to legislate heterosexual families, perhaps the first step should be to make divorce illegal.
Shirley De Lorme:
It seems a good time to recall the words of one of the foremost framers of the Constitution of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, "Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; the minority possess their equal right, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Joan Barry:
I was outraged by your arrogance in using the pejorative "we," as if speaking for all people of Wisconsin.
Taku Ronsman:
I expected you to defend the separation of church and state, and to respect human diversity.
Dawn Barron:
The Declaration of Independence says all Americans are created equal. How sad that we're teaching children not to respect those different from themselves, but to regard them as the enemy and to seek to restrict their rights.
Michael DeGrand:
Wisconsin has a long history of treating people fairly. This amendment would only deny recognition of any possible type of relationship for unmarried individuals. Confirm it yourself; read the second sentence.
Read the letters in full.


At 6:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went to the GB Press Gazette link, read the article, read some of the online commentary. One comment, titled "Gannett - in opposition to the Press-Gazette" includes info from the HRC Corporate Equality Index. Below the index items, there is an explanatory/disclaimer paragaph that contains this sentence: "Because of the proprietary nature of human resource information and because there is no centralized place where laws and policies must be reported, some entities that have inclusive policies for (DELETED), gay, bisexual and transgender Americans may not appear." Note the "(DELETED)" - am I correct in assuming that the Press-Gazette considers the word 'Lesbian' to be too offensive to print???

At 6:51 PM, Blogger Ray Albarelli said...

When do we stop redefining marriage? How long before those that have sex with animals want to make it legal to marry their pets?

At 7:42 PM, Anonymous quilly said...

Uh, Ray, marriage has always been between two PEOPLE, and I wouldn't worry about it not remaining so.

The amendment supporters want to redefine marriage in the state constitution because they don't think the current law stating "husband and wife" is good enough. The second, truly baffling part of the amendment is all about denying any sort of status equal to marriage to same-sex couples, no matter what that status might be called.

At 8:00 AM, Anonymous Leslie said...

Ray, let's be honest here: if you and other amendment supporters are genuinely worried about the slippery slope (marriage being extended to people marrying pets or people marrying multiple partners, etc.)then why doesn't this constitutional amendment just prohibit those things?


Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website