If Election Day Were a Wedding, Wouldn't You Take Off Work?

Despite the extra-long hours of these final weeks and days of the campaign, I’ve been able (more truthfully, I’ve been forcing myself) to read a few pages of a novel each night before I go to bed.

The novel I’m reading is about a young man whose parents die when he and his siblings are young. In the section I read last night, he was reminiscing about the flood of friends and family who came to support him and his siblings during the difficult time.

This led me to think about how we come together as communities around important events in our friends and families' lives. The mere presence of a loved one at these events—weddings, funerals, baptisms—is such a show of support, love, and commitment. Our society makes these events priorities in our lives.

We take off work, fly across the country or drive for hours to support our friends in their commitments. Here is another way that you can support your friends and family: stand up for them on Election Day.


At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What an excellent point. We should make the effort to stand up for what we believe in. This is why I will make time to vote "yes" on the gay marriage ban. Not out of hate, as many assume to be the case for those of us who do not approve of certain lifestyle choices, but out of moral obligation, and love for those participating in activities that damage their relationship with God.

At 11:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll be so glad that after this amendment passes all of you perverts and freaks finally go back into the closet where you belong. You should have never been let out in the first place. You're just lucky you can't be thrown in jail anymore for your disguisting behavior.

At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the first anonymous; the next entry is just an inflammatory remark that has no useful purpose. We should speak the truth in love according to what God commands. Disagreement does not equal hate. I disagree with homosexuality (amongst other directions this country seems to be headed in), and will vote "yes" for the sake of upholding God's Word.

At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if the second anonymous speaker thinks he/she has done nothing wrong in the sight of God. It would be interesting to follow that person throughout the day and see just how perfect of a life they lead. If we are to speak the truth in love in order to help people see where they may be going astray, how is what they said productive toward that goal? They should be wary that God does not judge them with the same harshness that they have judged others, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. With that being said, I will vote yes.

At 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The curious thing about all these posts is that they all retain the illusion that by voting "Yes" they will cause homosexuals to stop being gay, stop "going astray", bring them to church, and/or toss them in jail and/or "the closet".

Reminder yourselves, readers and posters, that this is an amendment banning gay marriage (already illegal in Wisconsin) and banning civil unions (whatever happened to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?) and probably more, if the "activist judges" have a chance to weigh in.

It's not a referendum on "gay".

Besides, our closets are, like yours, pretty full: of our kids' toys, our elderly parents' extra walker, holiday decorations, and some dang good cookie recipes. There isn't any room in there for us (especially after all those cookies).

What's that? Sorry, I can't hear you... *crunch* *crunch* *crunch*

At 1:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't believe the message writers were suggesting that a ban of gay marriage would keep people from being "gay." That is something in which people other than the individual have no control over. What people do have control over is that which they are willing to tolerate in society. People have to stand on one side of the fence or another; either you believe homosexuality is "ok" or that it is "not ok." If gay marriage is already illegal in the state of Wisconsin, then why would you be so upset that an addendum to the law be added? The answer is that the door remains open for further legislation clearing the way to civil unions and gay marriage equivelants being recognized, thus enabling a lifestyle choice that is not in line with what some believe. So then the question is, who is right? Do the gay activists have the "correct" life philosophy, or do the traditionalists have the "correct" life philosophy. The two philosophies do not jive well together. So it comes down to the will of the people. What philosophy does the general public have? We will see in about a week.

At 1:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't get the Caesar reference... you kind of lost me there. Did he want a civil union?

At 1:48 PM, Blogger Communitygal said...

I was speaking with someone I am close to and who is inclined to vote yes. She explained to me that she felt our government was given to us by God and that the Bible is intertwined with the Constitution. I have no doubt that she truly feels this, and bears gay people no ill will (though she does think being gay is a choice--we'll work on that after we win this battle).

What I feel she was missing was this: one of the many great things about our government is that it was established to allow for many different religions, and many different interpretations of the Bible, to live side by side. By voting "yes" to put one interpretation of the Bible into our Constitution, that cuts out the other interpretations of the Bible, including the reading that many Catholics, UCC's, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Jews, etc. find compel them to vote NO.

At 1:51 PM, Blogger David Schowengerdt said...

The point is that just because you don't like someone, think they're gross, or think they are immoral, it's no excuse to legislate (and especially legislate in the constitution) that person's life. The point of a constitution is to allow us all to agree to disagree, not say that one view gets to be written in stone.

Futhermore, people can't approve of something that just is. People may not like that many of us are born gay, but you don't get to approve or disapprove of it. It just is.

And to those who are espousing love as an excuse to vote "yes," how can you identify as love an action (voting "yes") that, if it ends up inline with the majority, will cause an enormous amount of pain and hardship to tens of thousands of good Wisconsin citizens?

At 1:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm... apparently nobody was paying attention at any of the "Sky is Falling" blogs. You don't have much of an audience here, either, I'm betting... Perverts and freaks, indeed. Did Julaine put you up to that?

But, tolerance works both ways, I suppose.

At 2:03 PM, Anonymous Quilly said...

I did not post the Caesar reference, but catch the drift. Jesus himself was wise enough to realize that God's law and Caesar's had to coexist. Alas, too many of Jesus' followers today feel that such distinctions should be blurred.

I've yet to hear or read any convincing argument as to why Vermont's (and possibly N. Jersey's) civil unions aren't a reasonable, secular compromise--especially since legal marriage is secular anyway.

At 2:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the comment about Biblical interpretation, I think it would be hard to justify homosexuality by the Bible. If you read Romans 1, it is very clear that this choice is not endorsed by God, and should not be endorsed by His church. Aside from the book of Romans, there are many other portions of scripture that speak to this topic. The problem with Biblical "interpretation" is that people want to add or leave parts out that do not co-exist with their personal thoughts on how things should be. If you let scripture interpret scripture (using one part of the Bible to validate and support the other parts) you will not get caught up in different "interpretations." The Bible does not contradict itself, contrary to popular belief (and if someone says it does they should have proof in the form of irrefutable examples), but supports itself.
In regard to the comment that homosexuality is not a choice, I would disagree, and so would the theory of evolution (I say these things from the perspective of a professional that has extensively studied biology, genetics and evolutionary principles). Rejecting the notion of God and His Word leaves the theory of evolution as the prominant explanantion for our existance. If homosexuality is something that people are born with, this means that homosexuality is encoded into the genetic makeup of some individuals. This could not be according to evolutionary theory. Homosexuals cannot reproduce (I don't think I need to get into the biological impossibility here), therefore, using the simplest concepts of biology and genetics it is easy to see that the "homosexual genes" supposedly making some people gay would not be passed on from generation to generation. This would mean that homosexuals would have become extinct a long, long time ago. So could you please explain how homosexuality is a genetically acquired trait.

At 2:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Civil unions enable sin... what is not compelling about that. We cannot outlaw sin, it would be impossible to enforce, but we should not enable it by having government endorsement. How anti-Christian of a sentiment would that be? (very anti-Christian, in case the rhetorical nature of the statement was not understood)

At 2:31 PM, Blogger Kevin said...

People who have tattoos and piercings should not be allowed to marry or be a part of anything "substantially similar" to marriage.

Why? Well, first getting piercings and tattoos are a "choice". You were not born with them and had a choice to put them on you.

Second, I think they are gross and I don't think God intended to create you so you can go and mark it up and put holes through it. In the bible, there is a verse that says, "Jesus wept". The verse means that he is weaping that you did this to your body.

Does this sound ridicuolous to you? I hope it does, because some of the stuff on here sounds ridicuolous as well. The yes vote arguements are weak and have no backing.

This is a free country, the constitution gives you the freedom to put piercings in you, tattoos on you, and live the lifestyle you choose to live. Some already live a lifestyle that you don't care for. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it has to restricted in a constitution.

Live your own life the best you can, and let others do the same without restrictions.

If you are concerned about tax dollars paying for things related to gays and lesbians. Remember, our tax dollars goes to the same place. We also cannot choose where our tax money gets spent.

We need to vote NO and get our legislature back on track to make laws that will benefit everyone and not hurt anyone.

Marriage is not being affected by this amendment, get over that excuse. Divorce rates won't change, single parents won't change, and domestic violence will not change if this amendment is passed.

This is an ambiguous amendment with no firm results. Just read any op-ed piece from any newspaper, they all give the same message. If passed what will be the end result as well as if it doesn't pass, what will be the end result.

Voting no will show that we all agree in the great freedom that this country allows for each citizen to have. You may moralily disagree with gays, lesbians, living out of wedlock, etc. But you take care of yourself before telling others what to do.

At 2:33 PM, Anonymous mary said...

If you are so concerned about sin, maybe you should be looking at yourself and your own church. I keep hearing about protecting marriage, yet I see no one fighting to make divorce illegal. Explain to me why divorce is acceptable when it is strictly forbidden in the Bible.

At 2:34 PM, Anonymous quilly said...

Gays are still stereotyped as promiscuous, so wouldn't "enabling" them to have stable monogamous relationships be the way to go? That would encourage less sinning, wouldn't it?

Regardless, you'll have to use an argument other than what you say the bible says to convince me that equality for all isn't justified in this case.

At 2:47 PM, Anonymous mary said...

Whether this amendmant passes or not gays and lesbians are still going to work next to you, be your neighbors, and send our kids to school with your kids. We are still going to attend churches, take our kids to the zoo, go shopping, cook dinner, take vacations and live our life just like everyone else. The only difference is that you can be in your 2nd. or more marriage but your partner and stepkids can still be covered by your health insurance. You have the "right" to visit you partner in the hospital, just as you had with your previous partners no matter how many divorces you've had. Is it right to use the constitution to take these rights away from people because you don't approve of their lifestyle?
Regardless of what happens Tuesday, we aren't going away, will still be here, working, raising families and living life just as you.

At 2:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the person writing the statement you speak of has to use something other than scripture to convince you, then you and he/she will never come to an agreement. You either believe what is said in the Bible or you don't, and it is not his/her job to convince you, it is only his/her job to present what is said in the Bible.
To Mary, perhaps you should look at the source for all the heartache with respect to marriage. This country has gradually gone away from biblical teachings. As the country has turned its back on God, the result has been where we are left today. Divorce, single parent households etc... are high because of the lax approach taken by many toward living together, pre-marital sex and not taking marriage seriously. "I do" is for life, but many conveniently forget this, and want to call a mulligan if things aren't going the way they want. FYI, divorce is permissable by the bible in instances of abuse, desertion and unfaithfulness, even though God wants people to try and reconcile before calling it quits, and does not wish for anyone to divorce. Perhaps you should read the scriptures more before making such statements.

At 3:00 PM, Anonymous mary said...

For your information, in the bible marriage is supported only if you "can not control your lust" but it is better to be alone and focus on God than to marry. It seems you don't know the bible so well. Seems that you all have your favorite parts that you use out of context at your convenience. At one time marriage was just a "legal" way to have heirs. I do not understand how anyone can be so concerned about defeating this amendment when there are so many things that true Christians should be doing. You would probably agree that everyone should be able to receive medical care. Yet you want to take it away from children because their parents are gay or lesbian. What does marriage in our society have to do with religion? You can go to a judge and be married.

At 3:01 PM, Anonymous quilly said...

I'm not asking what the bible says. I'm asking why laws that cover one version of couplehood could not/should not cover another, provided both parties are consenting, unrelated adults. We're all Americans, and that means our laws as a nation and a state should be applied equally, regardless of sex, race, faith, or sexual preference. Therefore, saying "God doesn't like homosexuality" is a useless argument.

At 3:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, I sense a lot of hostility... the thing I have noticed though is that it is not coming from the bible thumpers, it is coming from the champions of tolerance on the side of equal rights for everyone. How about the view of an agnostic. The non-religious problem with not voting yes is that health care costs will increase at a substantially greater rate if there is no regulation of who can and cannot be included in an insurance policy. The system is in shambles as it is, this is a way to keep it from being confounded further. Including whomever you like on your policies with no current way of regulating will make it incredibly easy for abuse of a system that has already been taken to the wood-shed. I work in insurance, so if you disagree you better have sound reasoning from the perspective of business, and the health care industry. Gay or hetero, a dollar is a dollar, and to me, money speaks.

At 3:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The passage to which Mary speaks is from the apostle Paul. It does not imply that marriage is only for those who cannot control their lust. Marriage was instituted by God and is spoken of as a blessing in several parts of scripture. Paul was speaking to the fact that if you are able to control your lust, it is good to devote yourself to scripture. God did not state a desire that as many people as possible should refrain from marriage... that would be silly considering he commanded people to go and fill the earth ("be fruitful and increase in number") Mary, your lack of understanding and depth of knowledge on this matter are making you seem very callous and ingorant in light of Christianity.

At 3:10 PM, Anonymous mary said...

The cost should not matter. If I am doing the same job as you, I should have the right to the same benefits as you. My out of pocket insurance costs will increase too going from single to family coverage. But my children deserve my insurance coverage as much as your do.

At 3:16 PM, Anonymous mary said...

Anonymous, I would suggest you have some studying to do or that you intentionally use scripture in bits and pieces to suit yourself. I actually have many years of religious education and theology so I suggest you are quite ignorant of what you speak.
However, I will not debate this with you since this amendment has NOTHING to do with religion but with equal rights for all people under our constitution. We are not debating what is "moral" to you, but what is fair to all.

At 3:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is, if I marry someone, they can go on my insurance. If I divorce them it is a lengthy and costly process. It will take a long time for to have someone else legally attached to my policy (since I can't get married again until I am officially divorced). There is an intrinsic check and balance in that regard. If gay marriage is illegal already, and a bill is proposed and passed to grant insurance rights to anyone a gay or hetero person chooses, then the check and balance is not present (unless included in the hypothetical legislation). Ok, now think about what you just said. Your children deserve your insurance benefits (and I don't dispute that). If you have legally adopted children (or are lesbian and got pregnant somehow, which you will have to explain to me outside the notion of artificial insemination) your children will be covered under your insurance. Your argument is therefore, really really stupid. I am so glad I am not bound like those Christians to turn the other cheek.

At 3:19 PM, Blogger David Schowengerdt said...

If you are truly concerned about cost, then why not outlaw insurance for ALL couples? The truth is you're just looking for a convenient excuse to save money, and since that "savings" comes at the expense of loving, committed, hardworking couples, you should be royally ashamed of yourself. I honestly can't even contemplate where your head is.

At 3:21 PM, Anonymous quilly said...

FINALLY, someone making an argument based on something other than faith! Thank you!

I have no idea how a basic necessity like health care became dependent on one's employment and/or marital status, but I agree it's a big mess.

That said, while you can offer an insider's opinion, it sounds like a worst-case scenario. That is, benefits offered are not always benefits taken. Case in point: my partner could be covered under my insurance, but she works and has insurance of her own, and it's cheaper for us to carry separate policies, as it is for many double-income couples. As others on the blog have asked, is employer-offered coverage more expensive than paying for the uninsured? I don't know.

At 3:26 PM, Anonymous mary said...

First, divorce is not necessarily a lengthy, costly process. I have been divorced after 25 years so I know how long it takes. And you can get re-married 6 months after your divorce is final and add your new partner to your insurance immediately. It does not take a long time to add someone to your policy. Also you can keep your to be exhusband or exwife on your policy during the divorce process until you are officially divorced. So you are looking at 6 months without covering someone else if you choose. So your statements are really, really, stupid.

At 3:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary, anonymous here. Just to let you know, I am a pastor. I have had 12 years of elementary and secondary education in religious private schools. I then attended four years of college in the pre-seminary tract. I then was in the seminary for 4 years. I have training in reading the scriptures in their original languages of origin (Hebrew and Greek), can read latin and German. I have studied scripture outside the seminary for 11 years now. I think I have a good handle on what the Bible says and doesn't say. That being said, I resent your accusations, since you are the one taking bits and pieces of scripture to support your claims. What does God tell us? We are not supposed to add or subtract anything from scripture (not even changing the dotting of an "i" or crossing of a "t"). You are ignoring the immense amounts of scripture that speak agains this topic, and have one passage that you have twisted to attempt (unsuccessfully) to support your stance on this issue. May God be with you and bring you a deeper understanding of His Word, and a greater appreciation for it. God's blessings.

At 3:34 PM, Anonymous mary said...

Guess, that explains why all the religions fight with each other and Christians among themselves. Everyone that studies religion has a different prospective on what the Bible says and what it means. Therefore, it is good that our country's founders separated state from religion.

At 3:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be that as it may (keeping your ex-spouse on your insurance), you cannot put someone else on the insurance until the divorce is final. An analogy. Let's say I am a single male, have no job and live in my parents basement (like David Schowengerdt). What is to stop me from finding some unsuspecting woman to put me on her plan so I can go to the doctor without paying out of my ass? Then who's to keep me from seeing someone else on the side because they have a better dental plan. Hell, I could keep a different girl for each different type of insurance (vision, health, dental, whatever). There is no regulation. This legislation will regulate it, like it or not. And, 6 months is a long time... much longer than it would take me to find someone to mooch insurance off of.

At 3:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is only bickering/fighting/unpleasantries amongst people because they do things apart from God's will. If people truely cared for God's Word and studied it, I venture to say our world's situation would be much better (not perfect, since sin is inevitable until judgement day), but better non-the-less.

At 3:41 PM, Anonymous mary said...

If 6 months is a long time, you must be really young. I understand what you are saying, however, there is nothing to stop you from going and getting married simply for insurance. But if 6 months is a long time to you, imagine people being together for 25 years that don't have the right to insurance that you can have the minute you get married.

At 3:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are missing the boat. 6 months is not a long time in regard to being with someone in a relationship, or with respect to things like prison sentences. 6 months is however, a long time with regard to things like switching the beneficiaries on your policy, or you getting the point of this argument. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed if you called your insurance company to change your billing information and it took them 6 months to change the info. By the way, I am 53... do you want to get together, I could use a better health plan.

At 4:20 PM, Anonymous quilly said...

This is indeed an odd thread for a posting calling for GOTV volunteers!

Anon. Insurance Man, you have nicely--ridiculously, but nicely--demonstrated my earlier point that it is absurd that one's health care is tied to one's employment or marital status. But, that genie's out of the bottle and we're stuck with it.

Health care is only one small piece of this whole issue. Costs keep going up regardless of who is covered or how well, so to me it amounts to yet another scare tactic from the pro-amendment side.

At 4:22 PM, Blogger David Schowengerdt said...

Mr. Pastor,

I am neither single (I married my husband in Canada two years ago), unemployed (I have my very own job where I work really, really hard), and live in my own home that I pay for with my own money from said job.

That aside, this odd conversation mixing insurance with the Bible is a dead-end street.

You want to tell us to take your Bible literally, without any modifications whatsoever. If that really is your view, then there is absolutely no purpose in arguing with you, as I'm sure you already know many things in the Bible are just downright ludicrous if woven into law and our customs.

Secondly, I don't know how you got from the Bible to health insurance, but it basically tells me that you'll say anything to justify your discomfort with gay people or the fact that we even exist.

There can be no honest discussion with you, unfortunately, so I'll leave it at that, and I hope the others on this blog stop wasting their time asking you to think with any modicum of logic as it relates to our life here on earth and in the state of Wisconsin.

At 4:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

um, david, I am agnostic... the pastor is a different guy. thanks for playing though, its been great fun. i agree with your assessments, there is no point arguing because once an individual is convinced they are right, there is not much that will change that. like i said, it has been entertaining, but i disagree with you and i am sure the others that have posted from the religious side also disagree with you. have a good one.
quilly, you asked for a non-religious point of view and i gave it to you. if you don't like the reality of it, that is your problem, i am just stating what i know to be from the side of business. i gave you my reasoning, and i stick with it, so i am going to vote based on that reasoning.

At 5:00 PM, Blogger Kevin said...

Well...if we weren't all anonymous, we wouldn't see the confusion.

I am gay, and a christian. I grew up going to a Lutheran grade school and high school. I denied for a long time of who I am until a few years ago. I looked at God for answers. I have always felt that my conscience is God talking to me. My conscience has never told me that being gay is wrong. In fact, me denying who I am...was.

I believe that God made me in his own image. Me being gay is the same as my hair color, eye color, fingerprint, etc. Its who I am.

I know the bible doesn't say this, but its a theory under the part that the Lord works in mysterious ways. Is it possible that he created some of us to be gay and lesbian to help control the population? No one knows any answers until we all enter Heaven.

Will I enter Heaven? I think so, because I am reminded of John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that WHOSOEVER belives in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

Anonymous Pastor or anyone, is there a bible that has an ( * ) after "whosoever" that lists who is excluded from that?

I don't think we should judge each other or create laws to limit someone's freedoms, unless they are convicted of a crime. Who we are is not a crime.

Religion is a personal thing, its not a political thing. While we all may disagree on different topics, we need to remember that the freedoms of this country allows us to disagree. At the same time, our disagreements should stay personal and not be made as the law of the land.

One should take care of their home before taking care of others.

A NO vote will show that we all understand and appreciate the freedoms that we all have. Let's vote no and all enjoy the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that each of us want and the framers of the constitution designed.

And most all appreciate each person for who they are and quit labeling. It doesn't help move this state "Forward".

Remember the bumper sticker, "Wisconsin, You're Among Friends."

At 5:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not the pastor or the insurance guy... I am a new anonymous. There is no (*) in the Bible to whoever. But there are passages like Hebrews 10:26, which states, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." I do not believe the pastor was passing judgment on you, I do not believe he hates you or other gay people because, in fact, Christ did die for ALL. However, the pastor was reminding you that what you believe is outside of what God teaches, and there are eternal consequences for that belief. We all sin, but if we give ourselves over to sin, we are lost. We cannot justify away wrong merely because we do not agree with a Holy and just God. Maybe it was him, or another anonymous, but someone said, speak the truth in love. If they didn't care, they would say nothing. The fact that they took the time to present what is said in scripture speaks volumes about how they care about the eternal well being of all different backgrounds.

At 6:38 PM, Anonymous debbie said...

I've been following this argument all day. And although I believe that there are many sound non-religious arguments in this debate, I'd like to add the following:

I don't claim to speak for anyone -- just myself. As a faithful Christian, as the daughter of a Christian pastor, and as a straight female I have this quote to add from the Bible:

"...And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." - Micah 6:8 (NIV)

It is also sometimes translated in other versions of the Bible as "to do justice and love kindness."

A YES vote would neither be just nor merciful (nor kind).

Those are just a few of the many, many, MANY reasons why I will be voting NO next Tuesday.

And many of my fellow Christians and other people of faith will be doing the same.

AND -- without being disrespectful -- I would like to encourage the anonymous pastor who blogged this afternoon to study this passage from Micah (in whichever language he/she pleases) and ask him/herself how humbly he/she is walking with our God.

At 7:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like you have an agenda, just like everyone else that has responded on both sides of the issue. I chose to abstain. The activists sound crazy. Debbie sounds spiteful toward religious figures that don't believe what she does (I didn't percieve the pastor man/woman as being arrogant, just speaking what he believed like the rest of you schmoes), insurance guy belongs in a mental institution. It boils down to who believes what, and no amount of discussion is going to change that. So let the vote decide like civilized people, and live with the decision. Either way, I will be glad when it is over so I don't have to see the stupidity of others prominaded in public arena like a freak show, and won't be bombarded with propaganda.

At 9:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ya, and the "Bible" says not to eat shellfish or mix textiles or something like that, hmmm....I thought this state and this country are governed by constitutions NOT the "Bible." I don't NEED for ANYONE on here to quote me these exact MatthewPeterJohn 13:98 or DuaneSheilaJeremiah 12:56 that strike down either shellfish OR a man lying with another man. It's a mute point because the "Bible" is NOT our governing document.

At 7:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Love the metaphor! I'm going to use it.


At 7:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops, I meant Lindsay. Sorry!


At 3:25 PM, Blogger Communitygal said...

Picking up on a comment from insurance guy: He says if you can add whoever you want onto your insurance, whoa, big costs coming (I paraphrase). Well then, you should vote NO. Because right now, every policy that allows domestic partner coverage allows it only on the basis that you have a spouse-like relationship, and fleshes out the criteria to include that you aren't and haven't been married or partnered with anyone else in the previous six months, both partners are over 18, competent to contract, etc. That is the line that has been drawn to contain costs while allowing employers to offer gay and lesbian employees equal pay for equal work.

Supporters of amendments like this one oppose granting DP benefits on the basis of this "spouse-like" status. They have sued claiming the benefits are illegal under amendments like this that have passed because the relationship is "substantially similar to marriage." HOWEVER, they have NO problem with policies that are written MORE BROADLY: to allow any other adult living in the house to be covered by the primary insurance holder, for instance. Atty Esenberg, one of the spokespersons for the Vote Yes side, told me and about 100 others at a recent forum that the Alliance Defense Fund dropped a challenge to DP benefits under the Utah amendment after the employer agreed to broaden its coverage in this way.

How's THAT for cost containment? If its about dollars and cents for you, vote NO.


Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website