OWN Blog of the Week

In today's "Forward Report" One Wisconsin Now named us the site of the week.

Their little blurb gives Lindsey the props she deserves for traveling non-stop and running the "No" show around the state:
On Friday the No on the Amendment blog showed us that although there is just over a month left, their effort is still growing. Blog contributor Lindsey Saunders says that she has helped to build the Speakers Network to more than 1600 people from every part of the state. This effort trained people on how to communicate effectively against the ban. She reports that in May Fair Wisconsin opened its first field office in Green Bay and has since opened seven others across the state. Although traveling around to all of the field offices is tiring, Lindsey says that she "wakes up ready to win because of everyone around me."

3 Comments:

At 8:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Editing to a particular situation:

"A legal status identical ... to ... marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Somebody is unmarried until they're married. (duh.) That couple in wedding dress and tux in front of the priest, is not yet married. They are attempting to attain a legal status identical to marriage. But they are unmarried, and a status identical to marriage is not valid for them. The gay-marriage ban is actually an all-marriage ban.

 
At 8:18 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Anonymous,

While I agree that the language of the amendment is quite vague and can be interpreted to mean a great many things, I don't think the Wisconsin Supreme Court would interpret it as you have.

The language of the amendment does not say that no couple can attain the status of marriage. The first sentence defines that only one man and one woman can attain that status.

The second sentence then states that no other arrangement will be equivalent to marriage.

The second sentence is silly and dangerous, but not for the reason you state.

Paul.

pdcook.blogspot.com

 
At 9:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So let's consider this . . . a group of folks who are now legally prevented from marrying by state statutes because they are of the same gender will also soon be prevented by the Constitution from doing something "similar" to marrying. And under this same change to the Constitution, a second group of folks, those of opposite gender, will also be prevented from legally enforcing arrangements they make that are "similar" to marriage. (By the way . . . If the institution of marriage is so badly in need of strengthening, then why is it so urgent that we ban arrangements that are "similar" to marriage???) I suppose we will "strengthen" marriage among the second group by coaxing more of them into precipitous weddings -- folks who will increase the rate of messy divorces. Meanwhile we'll ban marriage entirely among those in the first group, including even those who have been (or would make) perfectly successful spouses, parents and community members. It's just another case of public policy from a reactionary right wing Republican regime. Why expect it to make rational sense?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website