New Jersey Ruling
If you haven’t yet heard, today the New Jersey Supreme Court has asked their legislature to work on a solution to provide equal rights and responsibilities to gay couples.
Unlike Wisconsin, New Jersey does not have a state statute defining marriage as between a husband and wife, and they have a long track record of expanding rights for gay people, so the decision is not entirely unexpected. (The Wisconsin courts, on the other hand, have in recent years ruled against second-parent adoption and domestic partner benefits.)
What does all this mean for Wisconsin? Basically, nothing. We’re having a very different debate than what’s going on in Jersey.
We’re facing a far-reaching and punitive ballot proposal that would hurt Wisconsin families. What’s on our ballot is not about whether we will legalize marriage or civil unions for gay families. It's about whether we should constitutionally deny it for generations, even as a matter for lawmakers to consider. And the measure here would go a step further and could actually take away existing rights.
Our opponents will try to use this decision to scare people with their claims of "activist judges," but it's ridiculous to say that because a court rules one way in New Jersey that Wisconsin automatically follows.
Some of our opponents, like Rep. Mark Gundrum, will even outright lie about what's happening. (Gundrum’s statement and Mike Tate’s response.)
We can't let our opponents change our focus.
We have narrowed the gap, people understand what's truly at stake in Wisconsin, and we are about to turn out thousands of "no" voters across the state.
Now get out there and help us get out the "no" vote!