Fair Wisconsin's No On The Amendment Blog

My Final Thoughts

2006-11-13T14:32:00.000-06:00

Now that Nov. 7 has passed, so too has Fair Wisconsin, at least as the official political campaign. This Wednesday is the last day of paid work for most of the Fair Wisconsin staff.

A couple of people will stay on until the end of the year to tie up loose ends and to work with our board of directors to figure out what’s next for, well… for all of you. All of us.

I’m sure somewhere in the plans will be a strategy to overturn the amendment. I’m hopeful that day won’t be too far away, but it will take some time. There are two ways to overturn an amendment—either through legal action or by going through the same process we just endured: passage through both houses of the legislature in two consecutive sessions, and then by a simple majority of the public. Either way, overturning it will be costly, emotional, and eventually, successful.

We’ll leave the blog up, but it’s likely this will be the last post. The Fair Wisconsin website will sit for a while before eventually going down.

While Fair Wisconsin’s mission was not to achieve equal rights for LGBT people, I know ultimately, that’s what many of you are working for. Obviously, we’re left with a big “to do” list. In addition to marriage equality, there is a lot to accomplish for the LGBT community— domestic partner health benefits, second-parent adoption, non-discrimination policies for all LGBT people, and even just general acceptance of LGBT people.

Most communities around the state have some sort of LGBT organization that provides support and a voice for LGBT people, whether it’s a local PFLAG chapter, a group like northeastern Wisconsin's Positive Voice, or an LGBT community center like those in Madison, La Crosse, Milwaukee, or the Chippewa Valley. The Action Wisconsin Education Fund’s website lists several other organizations both locally and nationally. I hope that you continue to work in your community, toward your vision of a fair Wisconsin.

I was as sad, angry, and hurt as all of you on Tuesday night. I still am. Probably part of me will always be. I feel betrayed by the people of my home state, and I feel personally attacked. But quite honestly (I’m not just saying this to try to make you feel better) I also feel hopeful.

The work we did leading up to the election started to reveal the lives of gay and lesbian families to Wisconsin. In telling our stories and in showing how the denial of marriage hurts our families, we nudged the conversation in the right direction.

The timing of this amendment is hugely unfortunate. But the silver lining is that in this election cycle we showed that using gay and lesbian families as political pawns doesn’t work. I think we’ll see an end to the introduction of these initiatives.

So what’s next for me? I’m not entirely certain. For now, I’m slowly remembering all of the things I used to enjoy… reading, working on my house, making art, playing with my dog, going out of town for the weekend, spending time with Megan. It feels good to have these things back. I will put together my portfolio, look for a graphic design job with DP benefits, replace a toilet, keep trying to start a family, get an estimate on a new roof, visit my parents and brothers in Green Bay for Thanksgiving.

And then, with the rest of you, I will continue to volunteer, talk with people, and help elect officials who have my best interest in mind. Working on this campaign has changed my life. It made me realize, in a very tangible way, the organization, the individuals, the hours, and the piles of energy it takes to effect change. There were thousands and thousands of you working with me the four days before the election. We didn’t win, but we were out in force, and that felt amazing, and that felt like a movement.

Especially in that final push, you were working for my future, and I was working for yours. Whatever happens next, I trust we’ll all work together just as hard and with just as much passion. And for that, I am exceptionally proud, optimistic, and above all, thankful.

Another Amendment?

2006-11-13T09:33:00.000-06:00

Just days after Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, state Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, is drafting a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban discrimination and open the way for state-sanctioned civil unions."

So writes Judy Davidoff in the Nov. 11 Capital Times.

Read the full story here.

Two Days Later...

2006-11-09T11:13:00.000-06:00

I know many of you are wondering what's next and want to understand better what has taken place, so I wanted to offer at least a brief update.

I personally am just beginning to reflect on what happened after a day of putting aside my own feelings and responding to media inquiries. Around the office, our staff is also just beginning to reflect on what we accomplished and what we ultimately could not accomplish. We also have huge piles of paper, food, and other debris scattered across our 10 offices. Today we're focusing on cleaning up and beginning to close our out-state offices.

The organizations who formed Fair Wisconsin, Action Wisconsin and Center Advocates, will take the next several weeks to assess the campaign, seek input from our supporters, and begin to lay plans for the next steps. We remain fully committed to fairness and equality for all LGBT Wisconsinites and our families. We are hoping that our statewide supporters will continue to work with us as we forge ahead.

Details about election results are still emerging, but here is some information we have so far.

Although we didn't win, it's clear Fair Wisconsin's get out the vote operation had a significant impact on elections statewide, even according to conservative U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner. From today's Spivak & Bice column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

It sounded like a good idea at the time.

Get the proposed same-sex marriage constitutional amendment on the November ballot to drive up the Republican vote while driving Democrats out of office. The plan worked for President Bush two years ago, particularly in Ohio. So why wouldn't it do the same in Wisconsin this year, the GOP brass reasoned.

Welcome to the real world.

"The timing ended up backfiring," said U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Menomonee Falls Republican. "I think the opposite worked out this time."
*****
But the measure clearly had an unintended consequence by sparking a larger-than-expected turnout, especially among left-leaning college students, who flooded their campus polling places.

The result: Dems scored some unexpected gains in the Statehouse.
*****

In the Assembly, Republicans lost as many as eight seats, reducing the GOP's once formidable control of the house to what now appears to be a 52-47 margin. Five of the new Democratic legislators were elected in districts that include University of Wisconsin campuses. Among those expelled was Colleges and Universities Chairman Rob Kreibich, who represents UW-Eau Claire.
Democrats gained control of the Senate by knocking out four Republicans, including longtime Sen. David Zien, who also represents UW-Eau Claire.

If you can win by losing, score one for Fair Wisconsin, the well-funded grass-roots group that led the unsuccessful fight against the amendment. In his victory speech, Gov. Jim Doyle, who scored his own impressive seven-point victory over U. S. Rep. Mark Green, also put a spotlight on the group, thanking it for its efforts.

Even Republican honchos begrudgingly credited Fair Wisconsin Wednesday for a strong get-out-the-vote effort that helped Democrats up and down the ticket.
Just how surprised were the GOP bosses by the turnout?

Before the election, their data concluded that Green needed 940,000 votes to unseat Doyle. In the end, Green topped that goal by 36,000 votes, yet he will soon be out of work.

"Usually, if you exceed your vote goal," said Republican Party executive director Rick Wiley, "you win."

So much for conventional wisdom.

The turnout was most impressive on college campuses

Overall, two counties had majority "no" votes: Dane County and La Crosse County. We don't yet have the breakdown by city, but here's a list of the counties with the highest percentages of "no" votes:

Dane - 67%
La Crosse - 50%
Iowa - 49%
Portage - 48%
Eau Claire - 48%
Menominee - 47%
Green - 46%
Milwaukee - 45%
Rock - 44%
Sauk - 43%
Winnebago -42%
Bayfield - 42%
Dunn - 41%
Oneida - 41%
Kenosha - 41%
Door - 41%

Election Night Remarks

2006-11-07T23:37:00.000-06:00

We wanted to share something as soon as possible about tonight's results. Here's a rough draft (typos included) of the speech Mike gave tonight.

------

My friends, tonight we came up short in our struggle.

So many of you gave everything you had.

You pounded the pavements.

You emptied your wallets.

You forced yourselves to go up to the doors of strangers and ask them how they feel about something many of them had never discussed so openly before.

Many of you came out to more people than you wanted to because you knew telling your personal story was one of the best ways to change people’s minds.

Some of you have been giving this your all for almost three entire years. And many of us have made many personal sacrifices to make this campaign a top priority.

What I am most proud of most of all is how all of us dared to hope.

And we must not lose this hope and we cannot ignore what we have accomplished.

Because despite the results I still believe in a fair Wisconsin. I refuse to stop believing.

This debate was forced on us at a time and a place not of our choosing.

This fight against the amendment was never just about what happened today. All of us committed to a long-term struggle for equality and fairness for everyone. We cannot give up on Wisconsin, and there’s good reason not to.

We know for certain that many of the same people who voted for this amendment today are the very same people who will support equality for gay families within the next 5 or 10 years. That change might not have been on the timeline forced on us by our opponents, but we cannot ignore the fact that we have laid the foundation for long-term change in Wisconsin. Because of our work, more people in this state than ever before understand that gay families exist in this state and discrimination hurts them.

We may not have won the election, but there were so many victories along the way. We achieved many things that have drastically altered attitudes about gay people, gay families, and the way we do politics around this issue. We transformed a “gay rights” issue and made it a Wisconsin issue.

Our accomplishments are not in vain.

Two and a half years ago, it was unfathomable to most people, including myself, that we could wage a strong fight against the ban.

People said we couldn’t raise enough money. But we raised over $5 million from over 12,000 people to help us communicate with the people of this state.

People said we couldn’t recruit the volunteers necessary, but over 10,000 of you exploded that myth from day one.

They said elected leaders wouldn’t stand with us, and if they did, voters would reject them. But our leaders challenged that notion in fact, leaders like Gov. Doyle never wavered in his opposition to the amendment whether at a UAW rally or editorial board meetings in Baraboo.

Again and again, we proved the cynics wrong.

I know we have changed something fundamental because I saw it unfold in our offices every week of this campaign.

When I saw a standing-room only crowd of Fair Wisconsin supporters sitting in a church basement in Wausau back in March, I knew we were making change.

When I saw an ironworker stop by our office to take literature back to his local labor union because they had taken a position against the amendment, I knew we were making change.

When I saw clergy in their collars in Appleton explaining why the teachings of Jesus compel them to speak out, I knew were making change.

When I saw business leaders move from expressing private concerns to issuing press releases, I knew we were making change.

We set a high bar for ourselves and met it. This changed our campaign but it also changed the way people view gay families and gay issues in this state.

We transformed this so-called wedge issue into an issue that united Wisconsinites of all backrounds. We have made equality and fairness for gay Wisconsinites something that is embraced by many organizations, leaders, and average citizens.

Thank you to the thousands of gay and lesbian people who did not ask for this fight, who did not want to become poster children. You chose to interrupt your lives so that one day our children will know a world without discrimination.

You bravely stepped up to put your lives on display.

Thank you to all of you who like me aren’t gay but made this issue your own. Thousands of you refused to stand by silently while your friends, families, and citizens we will never meet were attacked with this amendment.

Together, all of us stood shoulder to shoulder—grandmothers, farmers, ministers, school teachers, and many, many more of us from all walks of life.

And although we didn’t win we ran a historic effort that changed Wisconsin.

It's E-Day!

2006-11-07T05:33:00.000-06:00

It's time. If you've already voted, most likely you're helping us get the rest of the "No" voters to the polls. Thank you.

If you haven't voted, most polls are open from 7am - 8pm. If you have questions about how to vote, where your polling place is, or what you need to register to vote, visit our voting guide or visit Wisconsin's State Elections Board website.

It's going to be a tight race and we need absolutely every single "No" vote we can get.

This blog will probably be pretty quiet today. But tonight, we'll be making a lot of noise, and you're welcome to join us at our Election Party. In Madison, we'll be at the Monona Terrace from 8:15-midnight, and in Milwaukee we'll be at M's 1101 S. 2nd St., in Walker's Point.

Justin's Grandpa is Voting No

2006-11-06T18:21:00.000-06:00

Remember back in April, when Justin sat down with his grandpa to talk about the civil unions and marriage ban? At the time, his grandpa said he'd be voting for it:

I know you’ve been wrestling with your position on the civil unions and marriage ban. How would you vote if the vote were today?
I would vote yes to ban same-sex marriage. I am concerned about what same-sex marriage would do to the institution of marriage. Would it water it down or have a deleterious effect? I just don’t know.

But after months of thinking about it and after reading this guest editorial in the Appleton Post Crescent by Rev. John McFadden, he called Justin to say he'd be voting "No."

Not only that, but he even started talking to his friends about why he's voting "No." He's asking them to do the same or, if they're undecided, to leave the question blank.

A Slice of the GOTV Scene

2006-11-06T16:19:00.000-06:00

This weekend thousands of you joined our GOTV push and knocked on well over 60,000 doors. Today and tomorrow, we have even more people signed up. Here are some scenes from the activities in Madison...

In 36 Hours

2006-11-06T08:02:00.000-06:00

Every year, just before my birthday, I get what I call “the birthday blues.” I find myself in a bit of a funk— never particularly sad or upset— but it’s a time I like to withdraw and ruminate about the year past, the year coming.

Emotionally, the past few weeks have been the equivalent of the birthday blues on overdrive. I can hardly start to think about the things that have happened over the last year, and I certainly can’t begin to imagine where the next year will take me, or you, or any of us.

With the birthday blues I usually have the luxury of wallowing in my thoughts over days, lunches, and long walks. But the thing about working on this campaign is I haven’t really had time to think about anything. It’s just do, do, do. I relish the gasps of time I have to myself (walking to work, waiting for blogger to load photographs, the occasional moment I get out of my chair to stare onto State Street) and wonder how I will feel a day after the election. How I will feel in a week. A year.

This campaign, as much as I both love and hate every moment of it, has turned into something almost… well, human. It is this beastly friend I keep wishing would die, but when it inevitably does, I’ll be quite sad. I’ll even miss it. I almost don’t want it to be gone.

But in 36 hours it will be.

All I know right now is that we have the ingredients to win. I spent the last two days at Warner Park greeting GOTV volunteer after volunteer after volunteer. In a few minutes I'll go back again to help with today's shifts. Every single person who volunteers has their own reason for advocating a "No" vote. All over the state from Eau Claire to Green Bay, from Wausau to Milwaukee, people are coming together to put their all into these final hours to defeat the ban.

You know what? I think we'll do it. And I'll have plenty of time to ruminate after we do.

A great day for a walk ...

2006-11-05T11:19:00.000-06:00

It's 11am on Sunday, and in a few hours, my friend Sandee and I will return to the streets to continue our GOTV canvass. Yesterday, between us we went to roughly 250 homes.

We had a ball. Sandee and I have canvassed together, oh, about 15 times so far, but GOTV is the dessert we've been waiting for. This is when we talk with people who have already identified themselves as voting no. We inform them of the address of their polling station, remind them to turn the ballot over (in Dane County), and ask if they need a ride to the polls.

People thanks us - often profusely. A fair number of people tell us they have already voted no. Some people thank us for providing the address of their polling station. Some thank us for reminding them that the vote is this coming Tuesday.

We had so much fun yesterday we recruited two more people to help us today - my partner, and one of his work colleagues.

If you haven't signed up yet, this is the time you're needed most. Sign up. You won't regret it. It's a beautiful sunny day. Join us. There is still a shift this afternoon and several shifts all day tomorrow, all over the state.

www.fairwisconsin.com/gotv

It's GOTV Time!!!

2006-11-04T11:39:00.000-06:00

Hey Everybody,

The blog may be a little quiet this weekend because we have all hands on deck out on the streets. I'm in Madison today and just drove around to all of our different staging sites to check things out. We've probaly already sent out over 100 people just this morning in Madison alone.

We are getting great reports from all our GOTV sites around the state too. If you havent signed up yet its not to late, visit www.fairwisconsin.com/gotv and sign up to help us defeat the ban!

I love GOTV weekend, its the most exciting part of a campaign. I hope you will join the thousands of other people knocking on doors and making phone calls helping us remind our voters to get out and vote NO! This is the most important phase of the campaign and it will help guarantee our victory on Tuesday.

3 days to victory!!!!!!!

A House Divided

2006-11-03T15:24:00.000-06:00

State Representative Steve Freese was one of the sponsors of the civil unions and marriage ban. Over the last two years, I traveled to his office twice, and met with him in his district to urge him to drop his support of the ban. Frankly, I found him callous and uncaring about his gay and lesbian constituents.

By chance, I’ve had occasion to meet and talk with his wife several times during this same period. I always found her delightful and personable.

This week, Dawn Freese wrote a letter to the Platteville Exponent explaining why she thinks her husband is wrong:

“Many important points have been argued in print lately about the Gay Marriage Amendment. However, I am frustrated with the fact that perhaps the most important issue involved has not been given any ink. Therefore, in spite of the fact that my own husband co-sponsored the proposed amendment, I would like to voice the main reason why I intend to vote no on Nov. 7.

The proposed amendment to Wisconsin’s constitution would limit the civil rights of a specific group of citizens. Think about this one hard, folks. This is no small thing. If you think it is, consult the Federalist Papers and the history of constitutional amendments. The U.S. Constitution, which our state constitutions are supposed to uphold and be modeled after, was intended to be amended rarely and prudently.

Amendments weren’t made to satisfy specific political agendas, but to protect our citizens’ rights and the integrity of the Constitution. The first 10 amendments, The Bill of Rights, expanded basic civil rights to all citizens. History proves the reverence Americans have held for our government’s framework and the civil rights it guarantees. When our founders first framed the Constitution, the only citizens who were allowed to vote were propertied white men. Since that time, Americans have amended the document to give non-property owners, black Americans, women and American Indians the right to vote. As our nation has grown, the Constitution has grown to reflect our expanding notion of civil liberty.

In sharp contrast to that tradition, some are proposing to amend our state’s constitution to limit the civil rights of a specific group that they deem to be not worthy. This fact should be alarming to all who love freedom.

I am alarmed enough to speak out and vote no.”

Dawn Freese

Tell Your Friends

2006-11-03T09:12:00.000-06:00

Hopefully all of you are having conversations and writing letters to your friends and family about what's on this November's ballot. Telling people why you personally care about defeating the ban is the best way to influence votes.

Corinne Rosen recently wrote this great letter to the people she knows:

............

Hello everyone! Since June I have been working up to fourteen hour days, seven days a week to help educate people and defeat the ban on civil unions and marriage.

I am investing much time and energy in to this issue because I am passionate about keeping this anti-family initiative out of our Wisconsin state Constitution. I believe that this ban is bad for Wisconsin. To try to write into the constitution that unmarried couples and same sex couples should not have any protections for their families is wrong. And that's exactly what the second sentence does by threatening healthcare, pensions, and any legal contract two unmarried individuals would have with each other.

It was not long ago when African-Americans were treated as second class citizens under the law. African-Americans were denied the right to vote, live in certain places, attend certain schools, and there was even a time when African-Americans were not allowed to marry each other. This is why the jumping off the broom ceremony was created. There was also a time when women were treated as second class citizens under the law. Women were originally considered property of their husbands once they were married, they were not allowed to vote, work certain jobs, go to certain schools, and play sports.

I have certainly benefitted from equal protection under the law. As many of you know my mother is black and my father is white. When my mother was 17, it was still illegal in certain states for her and my father to marry; until it was decided in the courts that although some people may not agree with people of different races marrying it was not up to the government to discriminate against those people. I was able to go to school with children from all different races and backgrounds because in 1954 when my mother was four years old the Supreme Court decided that separate was not equal. When I applied to college, I applied where I wanted to without the fear of being discriminated against.

I have had an extensive hockey career. I have played hockey at every level. I've played house league, travel, college, semi-pro, and internationally, but all of this too was because in 1972 Title IX was passed. It said that no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educational programs or activity receiving federal financial aid.

I became the first girl to play hockey at Pius XI High School because the athletic director had to let me play because of Title IX... Three years ago I coached with the Wisconsin Wild--to see the opportunity that the parents of that program have built for so many girls is amazing. For the past two years, I have coached the University High School Hockey team-- one of the first female high school teams in the state. Last year the team finally got a state-of-the-art locker room like the boys' because parents said that they wanted equal facilities for their daughters.

So when I heard that they were trying to write discrimination into the constitution by saying that, "Marriage is between one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

I was very upset... To say that we do not agree with unmarried couples living together and raising a family or gay couples living together and raising a family is okay. Most of us have very strong opinions about these living arrangements. But to write that into the constitution is not okay. To say that unmarried couples and same sex couples and their families can not have any of the protections for their families that my mother and father had when I was born is discriminatory and bigoted...

I have benefitted from many people fighting for my rights before I was around. When people said it was wrong to deny marriage which gives protections to families to people of different races they were fighting for me. When people fought to get equal educational opportunities for children of all races they were fighting for me. When people fought to allow women the right to participate in all educational opportunities including sports they were also fighting for me.

Now instead of fighting for rights people are trying to take away protections for unmarried couples and their families and I am fighting to protect them. All unmarried couples should be able to keep the few protections that they have for their families like being able to share health insurance and the right to make a will( which is "a legal document that could be considered similar to marriage")

I am working for Fair Wisconsin because I know that we can stop this nonsense of trying to write discrimination into the constitution and change the course of history. I also know that stopping this here in Wisconsin, a Midwestern, battleground state means that we will shape the political landscape in this country. It will be a victory for everyone who lives in the state of Wisconsin

This campaign is one of the best things I've been a part of. We have a staff of 50 in all corners of the state who canvass, phone bank, raise money and work 16 hours a day. We have over 10,000 volunteers, people who work hard to ensure that every voter in Wisconsin hears our message. We have been on television for 15 weeks. We will cross the finish line in 14 days and I know that all of these things will come together to ensure we win on November 7th.

I urge everyone to show up at the polls and VOTE NO on November 7th to keep protections that are in place right now for families. Keep this anti-family amendment out of the constitution and let's continue our tradition of moving forward in Wisconsin by VOTING NO and stopping us from going back to the days when we as a state accepted discrimination...

It is important to show up at the polls and vote no but it is equally as important to help turn up NO voters at the polls in the last few days before the election. This is one opportunity to truly make a big difference and stand up for the things we care about. Remember that you have the rest of your life to go to work, school, or hang out with friends... You only have one chance to make history... On November 7th take off from whatever it is your doing and Change History by helping Wisconsin be the first state to defeat this amendment...
Call 839-0091 TO FIND OUT ABOUT ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE TO DEFEAT THE BAN or sign up today at: http://www.fairwisconsingroups.com/gotv .

The Latest from Inside the Madison Office

2006-11-02T20:19:00.000-06:00

It feels a little delirious around here because we've been working from about 7:30am to at least 10pm many nights in a row. But we're still having fun. It's amazing how many people come through in a day to offer their help. Here are some of the latest scenes from inside the Madison office.
We are very close to unleashing our get out the vote program. You have helped us fill our shifts on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Now we still need more help with canvassing on Tuesday. Please sign up here.

Eldie Acheson has joined us to help with election protection.

David is responsible for building our online calendar and GOTV sign up system. He and Ingrid are making the signs for WWW.

Today, a board member brought in boxes of pizza for lunch. The scene was swamped within minutes.

We've taken over four floors of our building. Here's just one place where we're beginning to gather materials for the massive get out the vote push.

Madison GOTV central planning office...

Deputy campaign manager Matt Gerend and one of his stress release toys.

Campaign manager Mike Tate hunkered down and making some final fundraising calls.

To get out one last fundraising mailing, we had people working around the clock to do it in house.

Student organizing director Leah Israel, UW-Madison student organizer Andy Gordon, and fundraiser Kate Moen.

One of the many families who have been stopping by to pick up signs, make a contribution, or sign up for volunteer shifts.

Radio Ad Featuring Former GOP Congressman

2006-11-02T12:29:00.000-06:00

Former Republican Congressman Steve Gunderson recorded this 60-second radio ad voicing his opposition to the ban.

We currently don't have the money to air it, but if we can raise the cash (hint, hint) we would put it in the La Crosse and Eau Claire markets.

Vote "No" Quilt

2006-11-02T09:05:00.001-06:00

Yesterday evening, Amanda and Jenna -- the same girls from Alverno College who brought us the Magic Bullet -- came in with something else: a "vote no" quilt.

They spent the day tabling in their student union, getting the word out about the civil unions and marriage ban, and recruiting volunteers for GOTV.

Everyone who stopped by the table created a quilt square illustrating a right, responsibility, or protection provided by civil unions or marriage that would be permanently denied to unmarried couples if this amendment were to pass.

Fair Wisconsin has been highlighting 20 legal protections in the last 20 days of the campaign that would be affected by the civil unions and marriage ban. You can see that list here.

"They Wouldn't Want Her to Marry Meth-Head Eddie Either"

2006-11-02T09:05:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I found one of my all-time favorite editorials about this issue. The Chetek Alert, up in Barron County, took a position against the amendment. Whoever wrote it has some great lines and really knows how to boil down the issue.

Here's the full text:

Chetek Alert
November 01, 2006

Editorial: Amendments waste time, resources

Added to a host of potentially close election races on Tuesday's ballot are two state amendments. Both have been hot-button topics for citizens, one for over 100 years and one more so in the past two decades. But what percentage of the masses is truly affected by these
two amendments?

One amendment regards the union of marriage. With a "yes" vote, only a marriage between "one man and one woman" will be recognized as valid in Wisconsin. Approval of the other amendment would enact the death penalty for cases involving first-degree intentional homicide, if supported by DNA evidence.

The Assembly voted 62-31 to approve the Republican-sponsored marriage amendment in February, sending it to the voters statewide on Tuesday.

Wisconsin could be the first state to defeat such a gay marriage ban.

Fifteen states have amended their state constitutions to define or redefine marriage, and three others have passed amendments to void same-sex marriages.

The death penalty amendment would reverse a ban that was instated in 1853, the longest such ban in the nation. DNA appears to be the deciding factor, as critics say that type of evidence is only available in less than half of homicide cases.

Legislators, and not just Wisconsin's, have rehashed these issues over and over. And like a bad case of the gout, they go away for awhile and come back with annoying regularity.

Meanwhile, taxpayers move to different states seeking affordable housing, the noose tightens around the necks of school districts, hundreds of thousands go uncovered because of unaffordable health care, and there's still a huge flushing sound in the Middle East. Yet
the discussions about who should marry whom and whether to reverse a 153-year-old law linger on. Are these discussions legislative attempts to avoid the real issues that plague our citizens?

There are dozens of reasons critics are using to oppose the gay marriage and civil union ban, including the rash of benefits that would be lost to happily unmarried couples. But both amendments can be construed as attempts to legislate our morals and ways of thinking.

This is conservative northern Wisconsin. While we like to say we're open-minded, we are also aware there are many Mel Gibsons-in-hiding. Most don't want their daughter marrying her college roommate. But they don't want her marrying meth-head Eddie down the street, either. Don't suppose you'll see that on any ballots in the near future. Will we soon try to govern a divorce rate that escalates at unbelievable rates each year? Our forefathers would've never guessed we'd reach this point.

These are types of legislation that should take place in a living room, not a legislative room. Some voters no doubt carry these issues close to their hearts for personal reasons. But don't you wish your lawmakers were spending their money and time on other topics of interest that affect you every day?

Ed Boards Overwhelmingly Oppose the Ban

2006-11-01T15:10:00.000-06:00

At least 12 of Wisconsin's daily newspapers have written editorials urging their readers to vote no. Here's the rundown so far, with links to the editorials:

Appleton Post-Crescent, Uncertainty should not be written into constitution
Beloit Daily News, Too confusing. Just start over
The Capital Times, Vote 'no' to discrimination
Kenosha News, Vote 'no' on marriage amendment
La Crosse Tribune, This referendum is not needed
Marshfield News Herald, Vote no to keep things as they are
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Overly broad, dangerous, unfair and simply unnecessary
Monroe Times, Marriage vote is unnecessary, discriminatory
The Oshkosh Northwestern, More un-Wisconsin than "On Wisconsin"
Sheboygan Press, A no vote is best
Superior Daily Telegram, Reject death penalty, marriage amendment
Tomah Journal, Ban casts gays from mainstream

The Beloit Daily News wrote:

"Presumably, it is an effort by amendment backers to bar civil unions or anything resembling a civil union. But that's not clear. Nor is it clear just how far the courts might go in interpreting such language. When such important matters are left unclear, the law of unintended consequences almost certainly will assert itself….Call it the Attorney Full Employment Clause. The language makes this a fatally flawed proposal. We recommend rejection."

From The Tomah Journal:

"For as long as homosexuality has been a political issue, gay men and women have been condemned as filthy, sinful and abnormally promiscuous. It’s against this backdrop that many gays and lesbians yearn for the mainstream values embodied in faithful, lifetime relationships. Gays who embrace this lifestyle should be encouraged, not discouraged, which is why Wisconsin voters should reject the marriage amendment on the Nov. 7 ballot."

And from The Oshkosh Northwestern:

“No matter where you stand on the homosexual marriage, question, the fact is Constitutions have long been understood to protect individuals freedoms and equality from the abuse of excessive government power. The marriage amendment dishonors that dictum and opens the door to unintended restrictive consequences that reach beyond prohibiting homosexuals from marrying.”

Pro-Amendment Candidate Loses Treasurer Over Hit Piece

2006-11-01T11:04:00.000-06:00

UPDATE: I was finally able to post the images. Also, a reader pointed out this additional article from The Northwestern about Robin Makar and Julie Pung Leschke.

The Oshkosh Northwestern is reporting that a treasurer for Republican Assembly candidate Julie Pung Leschke has quit the campaign because of smear tactics, including a mailer that hits Democratic candidate Gordon Hintz for opposing the amendment.

The treasurer, Robin Makar, apparently joined the Leschke campaign because she knew her personally--not necessarily because she agreed with the candidate's views on every issue. Makar has been active in helping local efforts to defeat the ban, despite Leschke's support for the amendment. I met her recently at the League of Women Voters forum in Oshkosh.

Makar told The Northwestern she had grown increasingly frustrated with the flow of money and negative ads from outside interest groups in the campaign. She had decided to quietly resign. But then a pro-amendment flyer started showing up in Oshkosh-area mailboxes that was clearly designed to hurt Gordon Hintz. Makar felt compelled to speak out:

"When I saw that postcard and it was just a lie. I saw that it was such a political ploy not just to damage Gordon and damage this amendment – that is really near to my heart, I so believe it’s wrong," Makar said. "The combination of two things being such lie and it being about something I feel so strongly about, I can’t be quiet about stepping away from this."

Guess who paid for the mailing. Julaine Appling's Wisconsin Family Action, Inc. But who knows where they got the money from. They are not required to reveal that information. Technically this is "issue advocacy," not express political advocacy.

You should be able to click on the images of the mailing to see a larger version.

If you're seeing signs of amendment supporters' activity locally, whether ads on TV or mailers like these, please let us know.

NOTE: I am trying to load the images from the mailing but the Blogger image uploader isn't working. Will keep trying.

GOTV Update

2006-11-01T08:39:00.000-06:00

We're steadily making our way to our goal number of volunteers for the four-day get out the vote operation.

For the most part, the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday shifts are filled around the state.

What's left? Election Day. We literally need thousands of you to knock on doors and make phone calls reminding "No" voters to get to the polls.

Please take next Tuesday off of work and sign up today.

Front Group Gives $385K to Amendment Backers

2006-10-31T19:04:00.000-06:00

Amendment backers have received $385,000 from the Coalition for America's Families, a group that has run several "issue" ads against Democratic candidates, including Gov. Jim Doyle. The group is headed by a former chair of the state Republican Party.

Here's the Associated Press report.

Some of you may recall that this group ran an ad back in June 2005 attacking Gov. Doyle for supporting domestic partner benefits for UW employees. The ad made false allegations (as reported in this WISC-TV Ch 3 "Reality Check"), and they ended up cancelling at least part of their planned ad buy.

It's the money from this group that apparently made it possible for amendment backers to buy their TV ads.

The Capital Times also reported on this development.

Green Bay Only Takes "No" for an Answer

2006-10-31T13:53:00.000-06:00

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.

Wisconsin Amendment "Faces Considerable Opposition"

2006-10-31T12:24:00.000-06:00

BPNews is a national, socially conservative Christian news service. They have been running a series of articles on amendment fights around the country.

Yesterday, they featured Wisconsin:

If a constitutional marriage amendment is to be defeated at the polls this year, both sides agree Wisconsin just might be the state to do it.

It is the lone state considering an amendment on Election Day to have voted for Democrat John Kerry in 2004. Wisconsin, in fact, hasn't gone Republican in a presidential race since 1984 and was one of only nine states to vote for Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988.

The proposal has drawn opposition from newspaper editorials, labor unions, university board of regents and several prominent politicians, including Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, who is running for re-election and is leading in the polls.

"If you can think of an organization, they've probably come out in opposition to us," Rocco DeFilippis, a spokesperson for Wisconsin's Vote Yes for Marriage campaign, told Baptist Press. "... Wisconsin is viewed as the first place that one of these amendments can get defeated."

Nice. Here's the complete article.

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

2006-10-31T10:22:00.000-06:00

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.

Happy Halloween

2006-10-31T08:23:00.000-06:00

Half Way to our Goal

2006-10-30T12:55:00.000-06:00

With only a week and a day until the big vote, job duties are shifting around here at the office. Almost all staffers are moving to help with the get out the vote effort. So I've been busy doing a lot of data entry, and will soon be pitching in with phone calls, canvassing, and whatever else field staff need help with.

We're still about half way to meeting our "get out the vote" volunteer goals-- we have to fill 5,839 shifts statewide. We really need you to sign up today.

If Grandpa Was a Girl...

2006-10-30T09:26:00.000-06:00

Here's the new ad by the folks who forced the civil unions and marriage ban onto the ballot.

Again, we see a message that deliberately tries to confuse voters into thinking this is a vote on whether to legalize marriage for gay couples.

The concept is interesting, but I'm not sure it works. To me it seems over the top and unbelievable. It also seems strange to make child actors say these things.

Why do they have a kid talking about if his grandpa was a girl? Does this work?

What do you think?

Help us continue to keep the truth on the air and our ground forces turning out the vote.

Donate here.

Sign up for a get out the vote shift here.

Why I’m Hopeful

2006-10-30T08:25:00.000-06:00

This weekend I walked my 15th door-to-door canvas, and it was notably different from the first, second, or even the tenth.

Until very recently, we always found the same disturbing thing when we talked with voters-- at least half of them had no awareness of the proposed change to our constitution. I always found it depressing that people were so tuned out of state politics that they could not recall having heard about it before.

The good news, of course, is that they heard about it from us first, and we were able to inform them of the second sentence, and of the many ways the ban will hurt tens of thousands of Wisconsin families.

In recent weeks, they have also been hearing about the ban in tv ads, debates, and on the op-ed pages of newspapers. This week alone, for example, the Dodgeville Chronicle posted six letters against the ban and one in favor, and it also carried a quarter page ad from Fair Wisconsin. The Platteville Journal had two letters against and one for, plus a good front page article and a paid ad against the ban.

So today, when I knocked on doors in Dodgeville I got a completely different response than when I started. Every person I talked with knew about the ban. Almost all of them were familiar with the wording of the second sentence. And most of them, by far, said they were voting no.

I’m thinking these weeks of pounding the pavement, writing letters, wearing my NO button everywhere, putting up yard signs, passing out brochures, marching in parades, and speaking at forums … all these weeks of work are paying off.

I saw for myself this weekend that people are hearing -- have heard -- our message.

Sure, the ban supporters are pulling out the stops in a last ditch effort to scare people into voting yes with half truths uttered by paid actors. But we’ve been sharing our stories and our message for months, up close and in person.

We’re going to win. We have to keep talking and we have to get out the vote.

The Sunday Papers Buzz With "Vote No" Talk

2006-10-29T08:30:00.000-06:00

In strong and passionate terms, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel urges a no vote on the amendment in today's paper. Here's the full editorial:

Editorial: Overly broad, dangerous, unfair and simply unnecessary

A state constitutional amendment to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman is wholly unnecessary. Marriage, under current
Wisconsin law, is already defined as between a husband and a wife.

But this amendment, as worded, is not just harmlessly unnecessary; it's dangerous. The pernicious potential of this amendment is to undo protections, current and future, provided to both unmarried homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Understand, even if the proposed amendment had stopped at simply trying to define marriage as between a man and a woman, we would urge a "no" vote. The constitution is no place to tackle problems that don't exist. If the institution of marriage is under duress, it is not from gays.

The amendment starts out, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." It adds, "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

This second sentence does not specify gay "unmarried individuals." We would object even if it did.

We have not advocated gay "marriage." We have, however, suggested civil unions as a means to provide many of the legal protections committed gay couples seek and, we would add, deserve.

This amendment closes the door on even that. If calling a committed gay relationship "marriage" upsets, that's no reason to make providing legal protections to loving committed couples unconstitutional.

The amendment's supporters point to a clear legislative intent to target just gays. But legislative intent is only one factor judges consider in such cases, and the language is abundantly clear: "unmarried individuals."

Supporters say this amendment is necessary to stop "activist judges" who would legalize gay marriage. OK, but what is to stop "activist judges" in this state from ruling that the second sentence trumps any protections and benefits now possible in Wisconsin for all unmarried couples?

This is a door unnecessarily opened. It does close another door, however, to a step for gay couples that also poses no danger to marriage: civil unions.

Supporters are making much of a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Don't be fooled. The decision does not legalize gay marriage. It compels that state to provide equal rights to gay couples, leaving it up to the legislators what to call this union. This, in our view, will not compel any church to perform a gay marriage there. And neither will voting "no" on Wisconsin's amendment. In any case, unlike in New Jersey, Wisconsin law already prohibits gay marriage.

But put the legalities aside. This amendment was crafted by the Legislature to bring out so-called values voters in a gubernatorial race that they desperately want their side to win for reasons that have nothing to do with these voters' "values." Worse, this was approved by legislators who regularly bemoan big government.

Government doesn't get any bigger than when it pokes its nose into relationships that harm no one. And it is a beastly behemoth when it can shut the door on protections and benefits for couples, gay or not, who are in such relationships.

Up in Oshkosh, The Northwestern also weighs in against the amendment:

No matter where you stand on the homosexual marriage, question, the fact is Constitutions have long been understood to protect individuals freedoms and equality from the abuse of excessive government power.

The marriage amendment dishonors that dictum and opens the door to unintended restrictive consequences that reach beyond prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. A Northwestern reader and letter writer against the marriage amendment recently echoed that. The author warned not of gay marriage but of voters weaving "punishing limitations into a document meant to expand everyone's civil equality."
That message is pure Wisconsin from a Wisconsinite demanding the best. The best for everyone.
The Final Thought: Voters' beliefs and decisions are, honorably, their own to keep and make. But the Nov. 7 state referendum amending the Constitutional definition of marriage is more un-Wisconsin than "On Wisconsin."

In today's Wisconsin State Journal, columnist and editorial page editor Scott Milfred talks about why groups like the Wisconsin Technology Council and the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce have expressed concerns about the amendment:

The Wisconsin Technology Council issued a polite yet clear statement on the issue Friday. The council is a nonprofit science and technology adviser to state leaders. It fights to expand and promote Wisconsin's high-tech, modern economy.

Former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson appointed most of the Tech Council's members, so this is hardly a liberal Madison group. Its chairman is Mark Bugher, Thompson's former administration secretary. Its president is Tom Still, former associate editor of the State Journal.

Here's what they said:

"Wisconsin must remain a place where innovative people want to live and work. If existing or proposed laws, ordinances and constitutional amendments send the message that Wisconsin is not diverse or tolerant, the state will be placed at a disadvantage in the national and global competition for human capital. And without human capital, Wisconsin cannot grow a prosperous, knowledge-based economy."

The Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce is opposing the marriage amendment because it "may limit employers' ability to provide benefits to unmarried employees and their partners, regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual or of the same sex."

He closes:

Wisconsin offers plenty of outdoor fun and beauty, lively cities and other attributes. But when a state goes out of its way to bash gay and lesbian people, that's not only wrong -- it's lame.

It suggests to this important demographic of future business leaders -- whether gay or straight -- that the state is filled with uptight people bent on telling others how to live their lives.

It's a real buzz kill.

But consider what could happen if Wisconsin does indeed lead the nation in treating gay and lesbian people fairly. Suppose Wisconsin becomes the first to defeat such an unnecessary and backward amendment.

The nation would know that the heart of the heartland is a modern, fair and with-it place.

Tourism could surge. More young professionals and companies would give us an extra look.

A no vote Nov. 7 will help make Wisconsin a welcoming place for everyone in our community -- including commerce.

Donate Your Extra Hour to the Campaign

2006-10-28T10:42:00.000-05:00

I'm excited that tonight we get to set our clocks back an hour. Now that we're down to the wire (Just 10 days until Election Day!) every minute of every hour really matters.

In one week from today we'll begin our massive get out the vote operation, in which we'll knock on doors and make phone calls to remind our identified "No" voters to cast their ballot. This is the point when defeating the ban is entirely up to you.

We still have thousands of shifts to fill around the state. Most of them are in Madison and Milwaukee, but no matter where you live, we need your help. Why not donate your extra hour to volunteer with us? Come November 8, you'll be glad you did.

Update: WisPolitics Posts Other Radio Ads

2006-10-27T17:56:00.000-05:00

WisPolitics.com has posted ads from amendment supporters. The two ads they have are different from the one we obtained (posted below)--but similar themes. New Jersey and Massachusetts judges are gonna get you!

Here's the link to listen.

Amendment Supporters Hit the Airwaves

2006-10-27T15:23:00.000-05:00

This week we learned that amendment supporters are running radio and TV ads. The radio ads started this week on Monday, and the TV ads apparently begin next Monday.

Various amendment supporters have said in the past that they would not be running any ads because they don't have the money. As early as Monday, Rep. Mark Gundrum said on the Charlie Sykes show, "We have zero dollars to be putting ads on TV."

Julaine Appling and Lorri Pickens from Vote Yes for Marriage have repeatedly told reporters and supporters at their events that they did not have plans to run ads.

It isn't a coincidence that they waited until now. Because they almost certainly paid for the ads after Monday, Oct. 23rd, this means this expenditure--and where the money came from--will not show up on the campaign finance filing due to the state Elections Board by the end of the day on Monday. The 23rd was the last day of the filing period. After the 30th, the campaigns must file every 24 hours, but those reports are likely to get much less scrutiny.

Here's what we know so far about the actual contents of their ads and where they're running.

An ad has been running statewide on radio stations. It contains at least one completely false piece of information: it says there is a gay marriage lawsuit about to make its way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. There is no such lawsuit. You can listen to the ad here. (The music sounds like it's straight out of a horror movie.)

We know for sure they are beginning to air TV ads next Monday for sure in Green Bay, Eau Claire/La Crosse, and Milwaukee, and most likely statewide.

Because we have amazing supporters in every nook and cranny of this state, we also learned today that they intend to use paid actors for their commercials.

At least one potential theme of their ad is showing children who wonder what their future will be like if Wisconsin fails to "protect marriage." It's interesting that they have to pay people to act this out. None of our commercials use actors; they show real Wisconsinites.

All of these developments are a sign that supporters of the amendment are scared. They know that we are running a serious campaign to win, and they can't ignore that it's getting very close.

We've asked for your help many times, but if you can contribute again, it would be a huge help to us in this final stretch as we try to stay on the air and keep talking to voters. You can donate here to make sure our voice continues to be heard.

Milwaukee Office is a Bee Hive of Activity

2006-10-27T14:04:00.000-05:00

Hello once again from the Milwaukee office. We had 21 excellent people at our phone bank last night helping us with our get out the vote drive. Here are some pictures...

Last month I wrote about a Thursday Zamarripa family volunteer night. These have become a tradition. Below is Joey's sister and one of our volunteer captains, JoAnna, recruiting for GOTV while her youngest sister, Molly, assembles our "people of faith" yard signs.

We have also had amazing support from Marquette University students. They even have their own t-shirts. Sarah Cotton, Marquette Campus Coordinator, has organized "t-shirt days" -- days when all the students wear their "Vote No" shirts to maximize visibility on campus. Below are two students proudly wearing their shirts at last night's volunteer night.

Catholic Priests Concerned about Consequences of the Ban

2006-10-27T10:48:00.000-05:00

Today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel features a front page story about Father Bryan Massingale, a priest with the Milwaukee Archdiocese who has expressed concerns about the second sentence of the amendment and its impact on families.

An excerpt from the story:

Father Bryan Massingale, an associate professor of moral theology at Marquette University, wrote a lengthy essay in which he struggled with the idea that "the amendment, read in its entirety, poses a dilemma for many faithful people."
"The amendment upholds certain beliefs about the uniqueness of marriage," he wrote in the Sept. 21 issue. "But it does so at a cost, namely, potentially damaging impacts upon the welfare of individuals and their children."

He also dealt with the issue of homosexuality.

"Too often, discussions of this issue treat 'those' people - specifically, gays and lesbians - as if they were an alien species," he wrote. "They are not. They are our sons and daughters; our sisters and brothers; our aunts, uncles, and cousins; our friends, neighbors, students and co-workers; our priests, ministers and parishioners. 'They' are us!"

Massingale concluded that "voting 'no' on the marriage amendment, in my judgment, is the best way to respect all of our Catholic beliefs and values."

The article also mentions a statement from the Milwaukee Priest Alliance, representing 140 priests, that concurred with Father Massingale's understanding of the amendment:

"We share his well-founded fear that the amendment may be construed to deny rights and services, including health care, not only to those in civil unions but many other citizens of Wisconsin as well, irrespective of their marital status," the statement read.

It means a lot to me personally to see Catholic leaders publicly express their concerns about the ban.

I was raised Catholic. My family attended Mass every Sunday. I was confirmed and attended CCD all the way through high school. Both sets of my grandparents are/were also Catholic. My deceased grandmother worked for their parish, and sometimes I would tag along with her when she went to clean the church. My grandfather still attends Mass almost every day. He believes it's only right to allow gay couples to have civil unions.

When I came out, my family accepted me and today fully supports me and my partner. They don't have much extra money, and they don't even live in Wisconsin, but they've given money to help Fair Wisconsin. I believe it's precisely because of their Catholic values that they fully accept me, oppose these kinds of amendments, and want to see my family have basic protections.

Conflicted State

2006-10-27T08:43:00.000-05:00

The Capital Times' Judy Davidoff traveled outside of Madison to hear what people around the state thought of the ban. Turns out, a lot of people are conflicted, and many are quiet on the issue.

Individual people of faith:

Rosie Pavek attends church regularly at St. Matthew's Church in Green Bay. A lifelong Catholic, she believes in the sanctity of marriage and will reluctantly support Wisconsin's proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions.

"I still believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, although I have a lot of friends who are gay and lesbian who have had commitment ceremonies, and I am OK with that," Pavek says.

Republican lawmakers:

Republicans in the state Legislature pushed the amendment onto the fall ballot in an attempt to bring out conservative voters for GOP candidates, including gubernatorial challenger Mark Green. Yet neither the party machinery nor Republican candidates have rallied behind the amendment since.

Vote Yes for Marriage has been quiet too (although they're about to start running TV ads):

The institute sought out volunteers on its Web site to help make phone calls, host fundraisers and distribute literature. But not one amendment supporter contacted for this article was involved in this kind of work or could point to anyone who was. Appling and her associates were also unable to name anyone working on any such tasks.

And the mega-chruches:

Even the mega-churches in Waukesha and Green Bay, which Appling identified as key supporters of the pro-amendment cause, don't appear to have made the amendment a priority.

Bayside Church in Green Bay, whose former pastor Arni Jacobson had been tapped by Appling as a state leader on the issue, organized no formal activities around passage of the amendment, according to receptionist Nancy Lambert. Multiple calls to Jacobson and current pastors at the church were not returned.

John Green's take?

"[For] a voter confronting a ballot measure, the safest place is 'no' if one has any questions about the bill because a 'no' vote doesn't change anything, whereas a 'yes' vote does."
[...]

Green says there tends to be a lot of hidden support for these amendments in churches and rural areas. If country dwellers and church members flock to the polls, he says, "it will help the amendment to pass."

Davidoff concludes, "But turnout, as always, will be key."

True enough. You can help increase turnout on the "No" side by signing up to get out the vote.

Read the full article here.

Green Bay in Pictures

2006-10-26T13:16:00.000-05:00

As with all of our offices, the all-around energy and number of people volunteering has increased exponentially in the past few weeks.

Here's what things are looking like in the Green Bay office.

10,000

2006-10-26T10:25:00.000-05:00

A while back, we did a round-up of all the different facebook groups supporting Students for a Fair Wisconsin.

Sometime yesterday morning, before 10:00am, our main group - A Fair Wisconsin Votes No! - hit 10,000 members. That's right, we officially have at least 10,000 people who are not only voting 'No' on November 7, but also took the time out to join a group on facebook.

We're still about 2,500 members short of being listed among facebook's top 25 campaign issues (on all of facebook), but we imagine we must be somewhere close, which is pretty amazing.

(Oh, and if you're wondering, the main opposition group - A Moral Wisconsin Votes YES - stands at just over 600 members. By my calculation, our support among people who have taken a clear stance on facebook is around 94 percent.)

Note: this entry also appears on the Students for a Fair Wisconsin blog.

More on New Jersey

2006-10-26T09:52:00.000-05:00

Throughout the past few days, we'e been having intermittent problems with our internet service and with Blogger (the free service that makes this blog possible). Our apologies for not being able to post in a timely manner.

Back to New Jersey just briefly before we carry on with the very huge task ahead of us of turning out thousands of "No" voters on November 7th.

Our opponents will continue to try to blow this up and make it sound like what happens in New Jersey automatically happens in Wisconsin. But from my review of news coverage, the New Jersey story was not a top story in most national news coverage. Yesterday in the office, we did get many calls from Wisconsin reporters wanting to know the impact here, but overally I think this story is receding because most people understand we're having a different debate--about a very far-reaching and harmful proposal to permanently outlaw civil unions and potentially take away existing protections from thousands of families here.

Our opponents want everyone to think this is an abstract debate about judges half a country away, but it's not. This is a debate about people who live here and the way we should treat them. Our Story Project provides a good reminder about the families who are affected by this debate.

That said, many of our supporters are looking for more information about the implications of New Jersey. Because our opponents are working overtime to exaggerate the impact of New Jersey and what it would mean, we pulled together the basic facts and distributed this information yesterday to statewide reporters and editors.

The New Jersey Supreme Court did not legalize marriage for gay couples. What the court ruled is that the state legislature must determine a way to provide equal rights and responsibilities to gay families, whether they call this civil unions, marriage, or something else. Quote from yesterday's decision:

"At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples. Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."

Unlike in Wisconsin, New Jersey statutes do not define marriage as between a husband and wife. New Jersey is one of the few states that did not specify gender in its marriage statutes. In fact, the statutes refer generically to couples and "contracting parties." Wisconsin statutes define marriage as between a husband and a wife.

Recent court rulings in states like Washington, Connecticut, and New York rejected marriage for gay couples (and did not directly request that legislatures address the issue). Every state will deal with these matters in its own way.

Unlike courts in New Jersey, Wisconsin courts do not have a long track record of expanding rights for gay people. Generally, the New Jersey courts have used a more rigorous equal protection standard in reviewing discrimination claims. For example, Jersey courts have ruled for joint parenting rights of gay couples. There were critical precedents there that made yesterday's decision much more likely. Meanwhile, in the last two decades Wisconsin courts have ruled against second parent adoption for gay parents and against domestic partner benefits.

Also, Wisconsin judges are not appointed; they must stand for reelection.

As a purely factual matter, it's ridiculous of our opponents to say Wisconsin would go the way of New Jersey, even if there were a civil unions or marriage lawsuit here (there's not).

Let's get back to the debate about the measure on the Nov. 7th ballot in Wisconsin.

New Jersey Ruling

2006-10-25T17:16:00.000-05:00

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!

The Last Four Days

2006-10-25T12:28:00.000-05:00

This is it. The past 2+ years of fighting this ban are all coming down to the next 13 days, and most specifically the last four days.

In all of our offices statewide, our staff and volunteer leaders are working hard to line up volunteers for Election Day and the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday before. Our Greater Wisconsin offices, which I work with, are working beyond over-time to line up 300, 400, and up to 988 volunteer shifts for GOTV weekend.

Here's why Get Out The Vote activities are the key to defeating the ban: since this isn't a presidential election year, there are a lot of people who just don't prioritize voting in this election. But we can identify these irregular voters based on voting records and cross that with our list of identified "No" voters. All we have to do is remind them how important their vote is, and make sure they get out to cast their "No" ballot.

But to reach those irregular voters, we have to fill the weekend before and Election Day with phone calls and door knocks. And we need thousands of volunteers to do that.

Why thousands?

Say we only have 10,000 "No" voters who have irregular voting habits (trust me, it's many more than that). To reach these folks, we would need 167 volunteers knocking on doors for a full four-hour shift. To move the election several points, as we need to do, these numbers grow quickly.

We can change the results on Election Day by a significant percent if we can reach these tens of thousands of voters. We need your help.

You can sign up online www.fairwisconsingroups.com/gotv or stop by one of our offices and sign-up on our wall of GOTV shifts. While you’re there, you can help recruit more volunteers at a phone bank and pick up a yard sign.

La Crosse Tribune Takes a Stand

2006-10-25T08:32:00.000-05:00

The La Crosse Tribune took an editorial stand against the ban today. Their main reason for urging a "No" vote is the far-reaching second sentence of the ban:

If a couple is in a committed relationship, why does it make sense to interfere with hospital visitation, custody of children, health insurance or retirement or other benefits? The second sentence in the amendment could affect heterosexual as well as gay couples.

The issue really is not about gay marriage. That is already banned by Wisconsin statutes. The real danger in this amendment is what would happen to any unmarried couples because of the second sentence, banning civil unions and adversely affecting relationships “similar” to marriage.

Read the full editorial.

A Letter in a Bottle

2006-10-24T16:15:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, David Lapidus, a respected, outspoken conservative student at UW-Madison, wrote an entry on his blog, Letters in Bottles, describing why he is voting 'No' on November 7. You may remember David from Students for a Fair Wisconsin's 'Voices for No' Campaign at UW-Madison earlier this semester.

He writes that he supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples:

In short they are a very useful method to extend legal privileges to non-heterosexual couples that better ensure the individual's ability to discover their philosophical preferences and act upon them within a homosexual relationship and/or as a homosexual foster parent.

David also criticizes the placement of this ban and other "social values" issues on the ballot, saying that they distract from the real issues facing our society and nation:

[the current debate on this proposed amendment] easily distracts the political discourse from finding solutions to the very issues that allow us the opportunity to passionately discuss such "social values" at all (i.e., economics, foreign policy, national security, fiscal policy, civil liberties, etc.)

You can read David's thoughtful entry on the issue in its entirety here.

Note: This entry also appears on the Students for a Fair Wisconsin blog.

We Need All of You

2006-10-24T15:28:00.000-05:00

Today we announced the number of volunteer shifts we need to fill in the last several days leading up to the election. The bottom line is this: we need your help to make it happen.

If you've been wanting to get involved, but too nervous to canvass, too busy to make phone calls, and too broke to give money, now's truly the time to put the excuses behind you and think about the bigger picture.

This part of the campaign is very different (and arguably more fun and exciting) than anything we've done so far. All we need you to do is make sure people who said they'd vote "No" actually get out and vote.

Sign up today.

Final TV Debates

2006-10-24T13:38:00.000-05:00

You can still catch some debate-style action on TV if you haven't yet.

Tomorrow night, Wisconsin Public Television will air a mock trial they put together to weigh both sides of the amendment debate. They invited UW Clinical Law Professor Michele Lavigne to argue against the ban and Rick Esenberg to argue for it.

“Marriage Amendment on Trial” airs on Wisconsin Public Television at 8:00 PM, Wednesday, October 25, 2006, with encore broadcasts Thursday, October 26 at 11:00 PM and Monday, November 6 at 10:00 PM.

It should be very interesting. I met with Michele a few times, and she's very sharp and witty. And as you may remember, the producer of the program spent many weeks trying to identify an attorney to defend the amendment. It should be fun.

Milwaukee Public Television is hosting another 4th Street Forum debate about the ban. It will be taped in front of a live audience at Turner Hall this Thursday at noon. It airs Friday, Oct. 27th at 10pm on Channel 10 and Sunday, Oct. 29th at 3pm on Channel 36.

The question for the panelists: "Will the 'Marriage Protection Amendment' Make Us a Better Society?" Arguing for the ban will be guess who? Rick Esenberg. And Kevin Voss, the director, of the Bioethics Institute and assistant professor of philosophy, Concordia University. Arguing against the ban will be Lester Pines, partner, Cullen, Weston, Pines, Bach Law Offices, and
state Senator Lena Taylor.

Q: "What Would Jesus Do?"

2006-10-24T12:34:00.000-05:00

A: “Get Out The Vote!”

In our faithful discussions we have been debating and examining this proposed amendment, but now it’s time to change the tone of our voices. Wisconsin can and will vote NO by bringing every no voter to the polls. That’s GOTV (Get Out The Vote).

Our faithful voices must be accompanied by faithful action. In James, the writer really lays it on the line about how our faith and what we do are tied together.

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” (emphasis mine)

I won’t preach anymore.
We all know what to do. Put our faith in action and Get Out The Vote!

Peace,
Eric

"Do it for the kids," indeed

2006-10-24T11:19:00.000-05:00

Brandon Janes set off a flurry of "Vote No" letters to the editor with his letter in the UW-Platteville Exponent: "I know, for example, that many decades of research have led to the conclusion that, as a general rule, children do best in an environment that includes a mother and a father. [Vote Yes] for the real reason this amendment has been put to a vote, to protect marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman as God (or nature if you wish) intended."

Jordan O'Connell, a student replied: “The research he cites simply does not exist .. Faith is a beautiful thing, but it is not a substitute for fact, no matter how strong that faith is. When we allow faith to guide public policy in the absence of fact (or, more often posing as fact), we often see disaster”

Rea Kirk, Assoc Prof of the School of Education, replied: “I fail to see how denial of rights of others can strengthen a marriage. A marriage is neither threatened nor strengthened by other people’s relationships.”

Elizabeth Gates, Chair of the Dept of Psychology, replied: “Decades of research on this issue support the finding that children raised by same-sex parents are psychologically healthy and well-adjusted … In my opinion, the support of the gay marriage amendment is discriminatory, hateful and wrong. I will be voting no on Nov. 7.”

Blake Greisinger, a senior in Technical Education, replied: “Engage in political rhetoric! Let your voice be heard! Stand up for what you believe in! But please don’t insult the campus community and myself by flat out lying to us … There is no research that makes such claims. According to the American Psychological Association, “not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

Regina Pauly, Director of the Instructional Materials Library, summed it up nicely when she replied: “Perhaps Mr. Janes should do a little research before he starts spreading myths … I urge all voters to vote no on this amendment to the constitution. Do you really want to place discrimination into Wisconsin’s constitution? Let us practice love instead of fear.”

Photo Report from Eau Claire

2006-10-24T08:07:00.000-05:00

Some photos from a recent volunteer night in Eau Claire. Every office in the state seems to experience an influx of volunteers every day. We especially need your help now that we're also trying to fill thousands of get out the vote shifts. Did you sign up yet?

Students Are Working Hard

2006-10-23T13:00:00.000-05:00

The statewide student director, Leah Israel, wrote the following about the amazing student efforts to defeat the ban.

The student vote will be the deciding factor on November 7th. In the past ten years, student voter turnout has been exceedingly high and has truly had the power to make or break various elections.

Our student program is definitely on a roll. More than fifteen campuses statewide have official Student for Fair Wisconsin groups, and over twenty-five campuses are sending out a strong “vote no” message daily.

As I travel from campus to campus, I'm amazed how many students are taking time to defeat this. From 6am lit drops to chalking on Sunday nights, students are emphatic about educating their fellow classmates and friends on how detrimental and far-reaching the ban is.

Though certain student programs are allowed to have more campus visibility than others, all Students for a Fair Wisconsin group members are taking advantage of what they can do to maximize student voter turnout. At UW-Madison, Andy Gordon, Madison’s student organizer, has the ability to essentially take over campus.

While not all campuses have such a politically charged students as Madison, schools like UW-Stout and River Falls are out on campus each day doing whatever they can, whether that be lit dropping or canvassing dorms.

Seeing these young students so dedicated and excited about stopping this ban from passing is invigorating. Anyone who says students are apathetic and politically unaware are quite wrong. Students for a Fair Wisconsin ‘vote no’ and I am convinced they'll do so on November 7th in tremendously high numbers.

It's Time to Get Out the Vote

2006-10-23T08:49:00.000-05:00

This is where things get fun.

We've spent over two years calling and walking around the state to find a whole lot of people we know are going to vote "no" on the ban. Now we just have to get them to the polls.

Since it's not a presidential election year, only about 40% of eligible voters actually get out to vote. But if we can muster up enough volunteers to get the identified "no" voters to the polls, we can increase turnout by 10%. Ten percent more "no" voters is enough to defeat the ban.

It's going to take a lot (seriously... a lot) of people to make this happen. In Dane County alone, we have over 6,000 volunteer shifts to fill.

You can sign up for shifts online. And if you can, take the day off work on Election Day-- that's when we'll need a bulk of volunteers.

"Politely Fighting"

2006-10-22T12:12:00.000-05:00

Last week Jim Stingl of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel followed Fair Wisconsin volunteer, Alexa Bradley as she went door-to-door to talk to voters about the ban.

The piece quite accurately shows what the door canvassing experience is like:

Most people we met along Quincy, Pine, Adams and other streets in the area said they planned to vote no, which surprised me. It's possible this is not a typical Wisconsin neighborhood. The state as a whole favors the amendment 51% to 44%, according to a poll released last week.

"I'm voting no, so you're OK. I'm against it just on principle," one woman said before Alexa had a chance to launch into her spiel.

"We're going to make it go away. It's just wrong," said a dad whose kids buzzed around him right inside the door.

But there were others who said quickly and firmly they planned to vote yes. Alexa said she doesn't take it personally.

If these same people noticed her stranded on the road with a flat tire, very likely they would help her, she supposes.

[...]

For a hot-button issue, everyone we met was courteous. Stay warm, one woman said as Alexa headed off into the chilly night.

Read the rest of the column.

20 Effects of the Ban

2006-10-21T15:28:00.000-05:00

When we were 20 days before Election Day, we began highlighting one effect each day, including rights or protections, that would be outlawed for all unmarried couples by the civil unions and marriage ban.

So far we have highlighted civil unions, survivorship agreements, medical powers of attorney, and hospital visitation.

The list is on this webpage, which we are updating daily.

Ads from Other States

2006-10-21T11:34:00.000-05:00

Coloradans will vote on two measures. One is a constitutional amendment banning marriage for gay couples. The second measure would create statewide domestic partner recognition with the rights of marriage.

This ad is urging voters to vote no on the constitutional ban on marriage. It's called "The Ultimate Diversion," and ties the measure to the Bush administration.

This ad has apparently been used in Virginia, Colorado, Tennessee, and some other states in favor of constitutionals bans.

This ad urges Virginians to vote no on a far-reaching civil unions and marriage ban.

You can see the pro-domestic partnership ads from Colorado here.
And anti-amendment ads in Arizona here.

Why our Grandmothers are Voting No

2006-10-20T13:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Ingrid asked anyone who has already voted to talk about their reaction when they saw the ballot. Last night, our out-state campus organizer, Andrew Moe, posted his response on the Students for a Fair Wisconsin blog. Here it is:

I did it. I made the phone call, scurried across Capitol Square in Madison to the City Clerk's office, and froze my nose off. I voted today.

As I went into the office, I was greeted by a warm smile and the question of the day. "Are you registered to vote in the city of Madison?" she asked. "Yes, I am, ma'am." She handed me a few pieces of paper to sign, an envelope, my ballot, and the black magic marker.

When I took my seat, I noticed an elderly lady also voting today via absentee ballot. She looked a lot like my grandmother, with silver-grey hair and a large overcoat covering her petite frame. As I glanced over at her, I was praying she would vote no, just as I have been praying for the entire state of Wisconsin to vote no for several months now. Here was a woman who had lived much longer than I have, seen much more than I've seen, and experienced much more than I have. She had lived through a time when being unmarried was not acceptable by most, and being gay not openly talked about. Yet today, we were both equals at the polling booth, despite our ages and backgrounds.

By the swipe of her pen, she could cast a vote that would change the way we treat unmarried couples - gay or straight - by denying hospital visitation rights, healthcare benefits, and the right to make medical decisions for loved ones. Or she could help us defeat the ban designed to discriminate against gays and lesbians yet would prove to be far more sweeping if passed.

She folded up her ballot and turned toward me. To my surprise, she wore a Fair Wisconsin button. I hadn't noticed it before. Surely, she had voted no.

This brings me back to my own grandmother. Only a few short weeks ago, I decided it was time to set the record straight. On my grandma's 74th birthday, I drove down to Janesville to surprise her. Since she thought I was still in Arizona at school, she definitely was quite shocked that I was back home. And the questions immediately began. Where are you living? What are you doing? Who are you working for? As my hands shook, I asked my grandma to sit down. "I have something to tell you," I said.

Right then, I came out to my grandma. She was the last family member to find out, and I really wasn't sure how she was going to take it. I told her I was working for Fair Wisconsin, and I was trying to defeat the ban on civil unions and marriage for gay and lesbian couples in our state. As I searched for answers in her expressions, one thing became clear to me. I underestimated my grandma - she was overjoyed that I finally told her and even began asking about my dating life!

And just as I have been doing with all of my campuses in Greater Wisconsin, I asked my grandma to stand with us and vote no. Now, my grandma is a smart woman, but she doesn't know politics. She's not sure who is running against Gov. Doyle in this year's election, she has no clue who Kathleen Falk or JB Van Hollen are, and if asked about Herb Kohl, I'm confident she would ask me if he owns Kohl's Foods down the street from us. Yet one thing is for sure, she pledges to me to vote no - the first time she will have ever voted in her 74 years.

This is a symbol of the real impact that this amendment would have on our lives, and how it will undoubtedly affect our loves ones. While all I know about the elderly woman I sat with earlier today is that she's from "liberal" Madison, my grandmother surely is not and I guarantee I am the only gay person she knows. Yet because this amendment will have a real impact on all of us and our neighbors, these two women and I all are voting early, and we're voting for fairness. I urge you all to do so as well.

A call to GOP

2006-10-20T12:23:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Barry is the former Dane County executive and is currently the development director for Operation Fresh Start. He's also one of our Republican Voices for "No," and today has a guest editorial urging the GOP to vote down the civil unions and marriage ban.

He writes:

This amendment should concern every Wisconsinite: Democrat, Republican and independent. I call on Republicans to vote no on Nov. 7. Let us affirm the party of Lincoln and show that the birthplace of the GOP will not countenance government intrusion into freedom of religion, or memorialize inequality in our constitution.

[...]

All of us, and certainly Republicans espousing limited government, should be rightfully wary of governmental intrusion into this, a most private area of individual liberty. And, most dangerously, we are for the first time literally presented with a proscription of people's rights by plebiscite, which is a path most troubling indeed!

Read the full piece here.

Is Senator Fitzgerald Lying?

2006-10-20T09:08:00.000-05:00

Wait a second. Folks like Senator Fitzgerald have consistently avoided accurate characterizations of the amendment. But this may be the first time I've seen a quote that appears to be an outright lie.

Yesterday's Watertown Daily Times reports on a candidate debate. They had this quote from Fitzgerald:

“I think there is a lot of misinformation related to the second clause,” Fitzgerald said. “In states were the second clause passed, it has not been challenged,” he said. The same verbiage has been approved in 20 other states.

“Obviously, there are a lot of gay activists working against the amendment,” he said.

Senator Fitzgerald knows perfectly well that lawsuits in other states are underway that revolve around amendments' second clauses. He's heard about it repeatedly from other lawmakers, from the media, and most recently at a AAUW debate in Ft. Atkinson.

And Senator Fitzgerald also knows there are a hell of a lot more than "gay activists" working to fight this amendment.

Also, by the way, those 20 states do not all have same wording. Some states passed one sentence bans on marriage for gay couples. At least one of the 20 said only the state legislature could make the decision about gay marriage.

I Voted No Today

2006-10-19T16:41:00.000-05:00

This afternoon a couple of us walked over to the City Clerk's office to vote early. I've never voted early before, so wasn't quite sure what to expect. It was, of course, quick and easy and basically just entailed asking for an absentee ballot, writing my name and address on a few things, and casting my vote.

Here in Madison the ban is “Question One” under referendums on the back of the ballot. Unfortunately the ballot is going to look different for different municipalities across the state. In some places it’s on the front of the ballot, some on the back, and it isn’t necessarily “Question One” everywhere.

Connecting the arrow to the word “no” was a pretty exciting moment. It was definitely weird to finally see the text of the amendment in front of me to decide.

Has anyone else already voted? I’m curious what it felt like for you when you saw the ballot.

Tune in to WPR Today at 4

2006-10-19T15:35:00.000-05:00

Campaign Manager Mike Tate is going to be on the Ideas Network's "At Issue with Ben Merens" at 4pm today. You can listen to a live stream of the show here.

Top 10 Reasons to Vote "No"

2006-10-19T11:38:00.000-05:00

Lisa Kaiser drives it home in this week's Milwaukee Shepherd Express cover story. She put together a terrific and thoughtful list of reasons Wisconsin should reject the civil unions and marriage ban. The list is prefaced with this:

Voting “yes” means that the Wisconsin Constitution will include a ban on same-sex marriages and the legal recognition of relationships that are similar to marriage—that includes civil unions and domestic partnerships, two forms of relationships that many heterosexual people create.

Voting “no” means that the constitution will not include discrimination. It means that everything will stay the same. It means that gays and lesbians will not be able to get married in Wisconsin, which is the current law. It means that civil unions and domestic partnerships will continue to be options for couples. And it means that Wisconsin would be the first state to reject a constitutional ban on civil unions and same-sex marriages at the ballot box.

Read the rest here.

We're in This Game, and We're in It to Win

2006-10-19T08:50:00.000-05:00

A new St. Norbert's College/Wisconsin Public Radio poll finds 51% of respondents support the civil unions and marriage ban, and 44% oppose it.

This is very good news. It suggests we're closing the gap.

The last times St. Norbert's polled on the amendment, they did not ask respondents about the complete amendment. They only asked about the first sentence. The first time they polled on this question was in April 2004. At the time, 66% said they supported "an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman."

The April 2006 St. Norbert's poll, with similar language, found 61% supported the amendment, with 34% opposed.

That's a 10% gain in the no vote.

I think the new figures show what we've known all along. When people understand the full scope of the ban, they move in our direction.

No poll can ever be relied upon to precisely predict the final outcome on Election Day. With television ads and our canvasses still focused on reaching persuadable voters, we will be able to move a few more percentage points. And then our massive get-out-the-vote operation will kick into high gear right before the election, delivering us over the finish line with a majority no vote.

From the inside, it's completely obvious to me that our campaign is catching fire like never before. Every single week, we continue to talk to thousands of voters. Every office is inundated with volunteers every night of the week. Independent groups continue to hold forums and debates. Students are mobilizing on campuses everywhere from River Falls to Carthage College. People are talking to friends and family. And the media continues to focus on this debate.

We're in this game, and we're in it to win.

State Journal Series on the Ban

2006-10-18T15:55:00.000-05:00

Since Sunday, the Wisconsin State Journal has been running a four-part series of front page, above-the-fold articles about the ban. The State Journal is the second largest daily newspaper in the state.

The series, authored by Jason Stein, featured four main stories examining different angles of the debate. Each of the stories was accompanied by supplemental pieces, including some compelling profiles of people affected by the debate.

If you missed the paper version, here are the links online so far:

Sunday - The showdown on gay marriage

See profiles of a gay male couple from Cambridge and a senior, unmarried couple living in Madison. As well as this background on the debate in faith communities and this FAQ.

Monday - What do researchers say about gay parenting?

The article included this profile of lesbian parents who waited years to adopt their daughter.

Tuesday - Could the same-sex ban be dumped?

Wednesday - Amendment divides but also unites

Supplemental articles for Tuesday and Wednesday are not yet online.

If you haven't sent a letter to the editor to your hometown newspaper, please help us keep the conversation going. Urge voters where you live to vote no. Our media monitor page is updated with everything you need to send a letter.

On a Hill in Verona

2006-10-18T15:50:00.000-05:00

Spotted in Verona....another creative use of hilltop property.

Remember this one from Mineral Point?

Early Vote Registration Forms Due Today

2006-10-18T11:51:00.000-05:00

We're lucky that in Wisconsin you don't need to pre-register to vote at the polls. So, if you've never voted in Wisconsin before, on November 7, you can just register to vote at your polling place.

But if you're planning to vote early or by absentee ballot, and are not registered, today is the deadline to turn in early voter registration forms to municipal clerks.

For more information on voting, visit our resource, the Wisconsin State Elections Board website, or this very helpful article in today's Badger Herald.

Oshkosh League of Women Voters Forum

2006-10-18T08:37:00.000-05:00

On Monday night, I drove up to Oshkosh to speak as part of a panel at a League of Women Voters forum on the ban. The League has come out strongly against the ban, and a number of local chapters across the state have been holding educational forums about it, including in Manitowoc, La Crosse, Madison, Janesville, and Fond du Lac.

In Oshkosh, Ann Marshall from the League introduced the speakers to a crowd of about 45 people. Rep. Gregg Underheim, the lone Republican to vote against the ban in the state Assembly, said voters should oppose the ban because social policy does not belong in the constitution, and the constitution is intended to restrict government, not regulate individuals.

Bob Pedersen, the CEO of Goodwill Industries and a board member of NEW North, talked about how the ban would counter economic developments efforts are designed to make the region more competitive in the global marketplace.

Attorney John Bermingham talked about the legal consequences, including an analysis of the current statutory ban on marriage for gay couples and the court rulings that have confirmed that gay marriage is a matter for lawmakers not the courts.

Pastor Carol DiBiasio-Snyder explained why Scripture compels her to oppose the ban.

Sue Werblow spoke about her experience as a mother of a gay son. And Aaron Sherer and Paul Smith talked about the ways the ban would impact them.

It was great to get out of the office. I used to travel much more but haven't lately. I love to see some of the great people I've met over the past three years working on this issue. Aaron Sherer, one of the panelists and a board member for Fair Wisconsin, invited me to dinner with Sue Werblow, Jan Viste, Susy Vette, and Anne Romond. We ate at the Roxy Supper Club.

Aaron and Sue have been active for a long time, and they've helped bring more people on board. Jan and Sue have both organized some of the most successful campaign fundraising events ever seen in Oshkosh and Appleton. Susy and Anne both say they were never so politically engaged before this issue came along. Anne remarked to me that the issue has brought people together. She said she believes the fight against the ban has changed people's hearts and minds and that "there's no going back to the way things were before."

In the photo, that's Jan, Aaron, Susy, Anne, and Sue at the supper club.

Students for a Fair Wisconsin in the Campus Papers

2006-10-17T16:40:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday, the Marquette Tribune published a fantastic viewpoint written by a Catholic student whose faith is guiding him to vote no on November 7. In his column, Paul Hinze writes that Catholics have access to God's revelation through three avenues: Scripture, the Church, and personal revelation through an informed conscience. His informed conscience leads him to disagree with various passages of the Bible (which he says have been used just as easily to justify things like racism and sexism that we now agree is wrong):

It is Catholic Church teaching, which strongly emphasizes the obligation to follow an informed conscience, that advises me here. As paradoxical as it may sound, my obligation to the Catholic Church is to disagree with the bishops' teaching in the interest of fostering further reflection and discussion.

He concludes his piece by writing that our growing awareness of homosexual members of our community "gives us new opportunities to learn how God means for us to live together," and says:

We are at a point in history — a point that has come before with issues of race and gender — where the identity of a group of individuals is becoming clear, but their full participation in our community is yet to be attained. Let us not cut off this process with a premature ban, but rather join them at the table as Jesus did and seek the wisdom of God together.

Students for a Fair Wisconsin also received our first campus editorial board endorsement for the fall semester from the Advance-Titan at UW-Oshkosh. They call on voters to be smart and do what is best for Wisconsin:

On Nov. 7, your choice on the ballot doesn’t have to be one between “fair” or “moral.” In order to keep the UW System and other businesses competitive, a smart Wisconsin should vote “no.”

The Daily Carindal editorial board also wrote an editorial supporting the UW System Board of Regents for their opposition to the ban.

Finally, we continue to have letters to the editor published, including this one in the Badger Herald, this one in the Advance-Titan, and one in the UW-River Falls Student Voice.

Note: this entry also appears on the Students for a Fair Wisconsin blog.

Sykes Debate Now Online

2006-10-17T14:52:00.000-05:00

Ingrid did a terrific job today on Charlie Sykes' program. She was able to incorporate a personal perspective into the debate, while Owen had only abstract fears of Massachusetts judges and weak defenses for outlawing civil unions.

I was particularly struck after Ingrid finished talking about some of the challenges she and her partner face because they are a same-sex couple. Owen coldly responded that marriage is not about love and commitment.

Ingrid helped show the humanity of the people affected by the ban while also articulating arguments against it that should appeal to anyone's sense of reason.

You can listen for yourself. The debate is now posted on Charlie Sykes' website. You can download or stream the file here.

I greatly appreciate that Sykes has helped to foster a civil and serious examiniation of the ban.

My Uncle Wendell

2006-10-17T11:43:00.000-05:00

Families are important. That’s one of the main reasons we are working to defeat this amendment--we know the ban would hurt real families all over the state. I’m lucky to have a truly amazing family.

Every Monday my Uncle Wendell drives to Eau Claire from the Twin Cities so he can canvass with me. The first canvass Wendell ever attended was in July; at 6 o’clock it was still 90 degrees out, we knocked on doors with sweat dripping down our faces, our t-shirts sticking to our backs.

The seasons have changed and it’s starting to get chilly. We’ve had some pretty cold and rainy Monday night canvasses. But Wendell doesn’t let anything stop him from spending time with me, or from canvassing. He has even created himself a special clipboard and hat for canvassing, both have flashlights attached so he can canvass as efficiently as possible.

In some ways I'm excited for my life after the campaign, but I’m going to miss Monday nights with Wendell. I’ve gotten used to heading home after a long Monday night canvass to camp out on some mattresses on the floor with my Uncle Wendell. Luckily I still have GOTV week to look forward to; Wendell will be right beside me the whole way.

Ingrid on Charlie Sykes

2006-10-17T10:07:00.000-05:00

Charlie Sykes is hosting a debate between Ingrid and Owen right now.

You can listen online here. (Seems like it won't play on all Macs.)

UPDATE: You can now listen to the debate here.

Walking with McKenzie

2006-10-17T09:34:00.000-05:00

Saturday was my 12th canvas, and it was my favorite. It was the first one when I had someone walking up to each door with me. Joining me was a very bright 13 year old girl named McKenzie.

McKenzie lives on a farm outside Darlington with her parents, her younger brother, and a collection of goats, sheep and rabbits. Normally on Saturday mornings she would have been tending the animals, but she chose to spend this day walking door-to-door in Darlington, urging her neighbors to vote No. She did this in spite of a cast on her foot from a recent cross-country injury. Limp by limp, for three hours, she walked by my side up and down the hills and streets and porch steps of her hometown.

At one door, an older woman scornfully told us that “Jesus hates lesbians. Jesus said lesbians are going to hell.” McKenzie said she was surprised to hear such anger and fear coming from this woman. McKenzie knows that Jesus never said anything about lesbians, which made the woman’s comments all the more unsettling.

Another door opened to reveal four voters adamantly against the ban, profusely thanking us for what we were doing. Quite a few people simply wouldn’t tell us how they intended to vote. McKenzie was constantly surprised, as I continue to be, at the number of people who never heard of the proposed ban, or if they have heard of it, they don’t know about the second sentence.

At the end of the day we both felt good. McKenzie went off to play with her friends. I headed back home.

When I was her age, I already knew I was different, but there was nothing and no one in my world to tell me it was okay or that I wasn’t alone in my difference. McKenzie is so much smarter than I was at thirteen.

I have no reason to think that McKenzie is gay. I assume she is not. She just doesn’t think it should matter. She gives me hope.

High Schoolers for a Fair Wisconsin

2006-10-16T15:38:00.000-05:00

This weekend, we had our “High Schoolers for a Fair Wisconsin” training here in Milwaukee.

Matt Reischauer (who’s a high school teacher in his real life) taught the students about the ban and about Fair Wisconsin and explained to them how they can organize in their high schools to help defeat the ban. After that, they went out canvassing for three hours in the southern part of Milwaukee.

Even though the majority of high schoolers are not old enough to vote, they can most definitely help get the word out about the far-reaching consequences of the ban.

Wisconsin Second in Pop. Growth of Gay Couples

2006-10-16T11:01:00.000-05:00

A new population survey, released by the Williams Institute, finds significant growth in the number of lesbian and gay couples nationwide.

From the 2000 U.S. Census to 2005, the number of self-reporting lesbian and gay couples grew by more than 30 percent, from nearly 600,000 in 2000 to almost 777,000 in 2005. (Note: this counts couples only--not all LGBT people--and for obvious reasons any figures available underestimate the actual number of gay couples.)

The Williams Institute analyzed new data from the American Community Survey, which is part of the U.S. Census Bureau. Their press release offers an overview of what they found.

The largest percentage increases occurred in the Midwest, an area that had relatively low rates of same-sex couples in Census 2000. Six of the eight states with a 2006 ballot initiative that would ban gay unions experienced increases in the number of same-sex couples in excess of the national rate of 30 percent.

You can download the full report here, but here are the Wisconsin findings:

Wisconsin ranks number two out of all 50 states (second only to New Hampshire) in the percentage increase of gay couples since 2000.
In 2000, 8,232 Wisconsin same-sex couples were identified by the U.S. Census. In 2005, the number is 14,894. Of those, 6,909 are male couples, and 7,985 are female.
The survey looked at the 50 largest metropolitan areas. Milwaukee proper has 1,804 couples, but the greater Milwaukee area has 3,786.
The survey offers a breakdown by Congressional district--the first time figures are available for current districts:
- District 1 - 1,726 (southeast region, Rep. Paul Ryan-R)
- District 2 - 2,850 (Madison region, Rep. Tammy Baldwin-D)
- District 3 - 1,478 (southwest to St. Croix, Rep. Ron Kind-D)
- District 4 - 1,857 (Milwaukee, Rep. Gwen Moore-D)
- District 5 - 1,428 (west & north of Milwaukee, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner-R)
- District 6 - 1,161 (Manitowoc to Adams Co., Rep. Tom Petri-R)
- District 7 - 2,291 (Point to northwest, Rep. Dave Obey-D)
- District 8 - 2,103 (Green Bay region, Rep. Mark Green-R)

For more information on the districts, check out this webpage.

(There are some surprises in here, right? For example, why does the very rural CD 7 have the second highest number of gay couples? Likewise for the Green Bay district that stretches up to the U.P.)

Overall, the study underscores two things.

It gives us some hard figures for all those families in this state who would be most affected by the civil unions and marriage ban. It brings home our point that this has never been an abstract debate about judges in other states or the “sanctity of marriage.” At the very least, it's about 14,894 families here who don't seem to be hurting anyone.

Also, the survey suggests more and more gay people are willing to be open about their families. It's unlikely that the 81% increase in the percentage of gay couples is attributable to people moving here. Instead, it's much more likely that more gay families are willing to identify themselves. Hopefully, if those families are willing to be out on a government survey, they're also being more open with people in their communities. The number one correlation to being a no voter is knowing gay people, especially knowing them well.

Maybe this long debate has encouraged more people to step forward and be open about their families.

Wisconsin Public Radio did a short piece on the survey. Here's the audio clip.

It's Been a Year

2006-10-16T07:45:00.000-05:00

I'm pleased to report that today marks the one year anniversary of the No on the Amendment blog. Somehow, we managed to write about the civil unions and marriage ban several times a day for an entire year. Just goes to show how the issue is about a lot of things and a lot of people.

One year ago today, Josh, Lindsey, and I became authors here as we embarked on the "Great Trip North" during which we spent several days on the road meeting with our supporters, editorial boards, and faith leaders, as well as leading speakers trainings up and down the route to Superior.

I was relatively new on the job and remember feeling emotional about the great task ahead. (Some things don't change.) But back then, this November's vote seemed an intangible beast. Now, it seems entirely doable.

Start the music, here's a little retrospective:

2005
The Great Trip North (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
The Judiciary Committee hears our testimony but votes for the ban
The Senate passes the ban
Mike Tate joins the campaign

2006
Bloggers weigh in on the Senate vote
The Assembly passes the ban
We launch Fair Wisconsin and take our show on the road
Josh talks to his dad about the ban (Part 1, 2, and 3)
Conservative bloggers weigh in
I go on my first door canvass
We launch the Story Collection Project
And raise a lot of money
The Academy of Pediatrics says these amendments hurt children
Four former governors oppose the ban
Our message hits the TV airwaves
Labor unions come out in full force
Richard Taylor passes away
Our growing staff gathers to meet each other
Josh makes a confession (and lives)
You walk the talk
For students it's back to the ban - in a big way
We're buzzing and still growing

Blog Debate Continues on Air

2006-10-15T15:19:00.000-05:00

During the month of August, Owen from Boots and Sabers and I debated the ban on our respective blogs, as moderated by Jenna from Right off the Shore. You can read the entire debate on Wisopinion.com.

Charlie Sykes has invited us to debate again, this time on his radio show on 620 WTMJ in Milwaukee. We'll be on this Tuesday from 10-11am.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't nervous about being on air and about participating in a debate. I'm usually happy to leave that task to Mike Tate.

But at least I have one big thing going me-- I know I'm right.

Journal Sentinel Goes Inside the Campaigns

2006-10-15T11:28:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday, a reporter from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel spent almost an entire day following our campaign. It would have been nice if he could have written an entire article about each side, but he had to split one article with coverage of Vote Yes for Marriage.

Here's an excerpt:

On Thursday, before dawn, Tate and 13 students stand shivering in front of the statue of Abraham Lincoln at UW-Madison's campus. They place 5,000 leaflets in lecture halls.

"Everyone likes to say that young people don't vote," he says. "Well, young people don't vote because ad campaigns don't target them. We've proven in Wisconsin that if you speak to students about things they care about, they vote."

Gay marriage appears to be one of those issues.

Tate is first in the office. Others trickle in before 8 a.m. It looks a little bit like graduate school, with 52 full-timers on staff, hunched over computers, working phones, checking data. Some worked with Tate on past campaigns. Others were drawn to this one. Half the staff is straight, and half is gay, Tate reckons.

The campaign exists in the real world and the virtual world - 10 brick-and-mortar offices and what Web producer Ingrid Ankerson calls a "virtual field office" on the Internet, which enables the campaign to map all its events and spin its side of the issue.

The campaign has added other wrinkles: fund raising through house parties; training 1,800 speakers to tell their stories so the issue becomes personal; and, perhaps most important, outreach to churches, not just for organizing but for outright support.

But the campaign also is serious about putting boots on the ground, knocking on doors and, ultimately, turning out votes.

And here's the complete article.

NY Times on Amendment Battles Nationwide

2006-10-14T14:24:00.000-05:00

Today's New York Times reports on the eight states facing constitutional bans at the ballot box this November. The above-the-fold, front page headline reads, "Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue."

Not far below is a revealing quote from Julaine Appling. She says, "The opponents of these measures have had a lot more time to organize and fund their efforts; that has made for a bit of a different complexion."

One of the two photos features Fair Wisconsin volunteer Jackie Scully talking to a voter in Madison during last Tuesday's canvass.

The article helps explain the very different dynamic this year as compared to 2004 when these amendments arguably helped fuel socially conservative turnout:

The debate over same-sex marriage was a black-or-white proposition two years ago when voters in 11 states barred gay couples from marrying.

But this year shades of gray are everywhere, as eight more states consider similar ballot measures. Some of the proposed bans are struggling in the polls, and the issue of same-sex marriage itself has largely failed to rouse conservative voters.

In some cases, other issues, like the war in Iraq and ethics in Washington, have seized voters’ attention. But the biggest change, people on both sides of the issue say, is that supporters of same-sex marriage this year are likely to be as mobilized as the opponents.

The social conservatives, who focused on marriage in 2004 and helped President Bush gain re-election in some hard-fought states in the Midwest, have been offset by equally committed and organized opposition. Slick advertising, paid staff and get-out-the-vote drives have become a two-way street.

Here's the complete article.

Platteville: A Hotbed of Opposition to the Ban

2006-10-14T11:17:00.000-05:00

These notes are from Kelly Cauffman, who is helping organize a storm of anti-ban activity in Platteville.

“The campus kids have been holding forums, peaceful rallies, voter registration signups, and talking in classes.

“They have also been trying to get something set up with the campus radio station.

“Off campus, Dave Rottserman has been working very, very hard with the canvassing project. Robin Timm has raised enough money that we will be doing two weeks of newspaper ads in all five Grant county newspapers. And any more money raised will be used for ads on the radio station. Depending on how much money is raised, we will be doing 30 second spots throughout the days before the campaign.

“I will be painting large plywood signs that were donated by Kathy Hottenstein, and trying to get those out this weekend.

“Robin has been giving tons of talks at the university. I mean tons, i think she is on campus more than some of the students :))

“I have sent pics and articles to both the Platteville Journal and the Exponent as press releases concerning some of the activities that the students have been doing.

“Sheri and Duane Ford (UW Dean), and a few other faculty members have speaking to various organizations around town.

“With the work that has been going on around here, I think we have a very good chance of having great numbers in this area. But it will be important to get all the people we have talked to, to actually remember to vote!!”

Report Shows Amendment Supporters Change Tune

2006-10-13T13:45:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Fair Wisconsin released a short report (PDF) detailing how amendment backers in other states said one thing before their elections and then after the election they took actions that directly contradicted their words.

The pattern is clear: write constitutional bans on civil unions and marriage, assure voters that these measures aren't about limiting benefits, but then after it passes use that language to guarantee all sorts of far-reaching consequences. Ban supporters don't just want to outlaw civil unions and marriage. They oppose any measure of legal protections or recognition for gay families--or any unmarried couples for that matter.

Here's just one example from the report:

Ohio - Before Election
Pro-Amendment Group Pledged Not To Become Involved In Lawsuits Regarding The Legal Arrangements Of Unmarried Couples: During the 2004 debate on the Ohio amendment, the Citizens for Community Values (CCV) said it would not become involved in lawsuits related to legal arrangements for unmarried couples. (Business First, 11/26/04)

Ohio - After Election
CCV Filed “Friend-Of-The-Court” Brief In Support Of Man Accused Of Assaulting His Girlfriend: In 2006, CCV filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Ohio Supreme Court in support of a man accused of assaulting his girlfriend. The man was being prosecuted under Ohio’s domestic violence law. CCV argues that the amendment means courts cannot treat unmarried couples as if they are in a marriage-like relationship, even for the purposes of domestic violence protections. Amendment author David Langdon co-wrote the CCV brief. (People for the American Way, 8/29/06, CCV amicus brief)

Here's the full report.

Madison's Family and Friends Canvass

2006-10-13T12:04:00.000-05:00

This Sunday, Fair Wisconsin along with PFLAG will host its first ever Family and Friends Canvass in Madison.

Although we always encourage volunteers to bring friends to canvass with them, this will be a day for our friends and family to talk to voters about how people they love will be hurt by the ban.

If you haven't volunteered with us because you can’t get a babysitter, Sunday is your day. The Campus Women’s Center and Fair Wisconsin staff have offered to watch children three years old and up while parents, grandparents, cousins, and family go out to canvass the county.

If you bring kids, please pack a lunch and bring their favorite toys. Get the details and sign up online or e-mail Nathan Figueroa at nathan.figueroa@fairwisconsin.com for more info.

"I was your classmate and teammate"

2006-10-13T09:12:00.000-05:00

There was a nice guest commentary written by Sarah Erickson in yesterday's Monroe Times that brings home what this amendment is really about: our neighbors, our friends, and our family.

She writes:

I volunteer my time to my local YWCA as a facilitator for conversations on race and racism. I ride my bicycle on a stretch of the Mississippi River near my apartment about three times a week and play in a volleyball league on Monday nights. I watch movies, go bowling and have dinner parties and study dates with my friends....

Yet regardless of all of these things, come Nov. 7, you, as Wisconsin citizens, will have the option to ban my ability to become legally married, have a legally recognized civil union and eliminate some of my current legal rights simply because I am a lesbian.

And goes on:

You watched me play sports in high school and took pride in my team's victories. I sat as a student in your classrooms in grade school, junior high and high school. I was your co-worker at Greenco and the Sheriff's Department. I waited on you at Ruf's Confectionery and Burger King. I was your classmate and teammate. I am your mother, your grandmother, your teacher and your friend.

Read the full piece here.

Spotlight on Leah, Statewide Student Organizer

2006-10-12T13:17:00.000-05:00

We're extremely lucky to have Leah Israel running our aggressive Students for a Fair Wisconsin campaign. Originally from Highland Park, Illinois Leah recently earned a degree in English from the University of Iowa. She also attended UW-Madison which is when she started becoming interested in politics. She's worked as a student organizer on Howard Dean's campaign and later for America Coming Together.

Why is this issue important to you?
The proposed ban on civil unions and marriage is a consequential issue to me because it prohibits certain individuals from basic civil liberties and crucial legal protections. As a recent UW student, I want to defeat the ban because it would perpetuate and maybe even encourage discriminatory behavior and feelings.

Why should students care about the ban?
Students, regardless of whether or not they can vote, should care about the ban because it affects their future in Wisconsin and a wide range of Wisconsin families. This ban is extremely far-fetched and it if passes, gay families will be unable to receive the rights and responsibilities that our government should provide to all citizens with marriage--possibly for generations to come.

Describe an average day on the job.
On an average day, I oversee the Madison, Milwaukee, and greater Wisconsin student organizers. I'm also always thinking of beneficial ways to conduct student outreach. In order to recruit students and get them involved and excited, my daily events usually include meetings, attending campus events, phone conferences with other student organizers, and lots and lots of emails!

What is the most challenging part of your job?
I'd have to say that the most challenging part of my job is also one of the most rewarding aspects of the job. While it is extremely difficult to just walk up to a group of students and start talking about Fair Wisconsin's efforts to defeat the ban, I also have found that students are much more invested in the issues than most people give them credit.

Eau Claire's Silver Bullet

2006-10-12T11:34:00.000-05:00

Last night we were busy phone banking in Eau Claire when I heard someone coming up the stairs to the office. I turned around, and there was Christopher Iannone, one of my star volunteers, his arms filled with bags of groceries.

Chris already volunteers at least once a week (and works full time and goes to school part time) but he was inspired by the volunteers who donated snacks in Milwaukee to do even more.

Seeing the mountain of food Chris gave us literally brought tears to my eyes. The generosity and selflessness this campaign has brought out in people is amazing. Chris even cleaned out our refrigerator, which I have to admit was pretty disgusting.

Putting the Fun in Fundraising

2006-10-12T08:57:00.000-05:00

I certainly hope the finance staff enjoys asking for money, because I think it’s about as fun as driving in a blizzard with my eyes shut. But we all have to ask for money because without it there’s no organized concerted effort to defeat the ban. There would be no ads, no field offices, no canvassing, no literature…no campaign. And, well, I’d be out a job. You’d have to find some other blog to distract you from whatever else you should be doing.

Fortunately, we have Kate Moen (pictured here) and Liz Fujii whose job it is to make sure our supporters have fun while bringing in serious cash.

The two of them have each organized several fundraiser parties in Madison and Milwaukee like the upcoming Milwaukee party planned for October 23 at the Lakefront Brewery.

Together they’re also helping statewide no-voters put on their own parties. Our house party program has been wildly successful-- according to Kate, there’s at least one house party every day this month somewhere in Wisconsin. Even out-of-state folks are pitching in—Coleman wrote about the upcoming Chicago event, there’s one next week in Washington DC, and we recently had one in Minneapolis. There was even a couple in Delaware who competed in a triathlon in memory of Richard Taylor, and then hosted a house party on our behalf.

We’re going to need money right up until Election Day, but now is an especially important time. If you’d like to help keep the "fun" in fundraising, this page will get you started.

Wisconsin Campuses Gaining Momentum

2006-10-11T17:40:00.000-05:00

Our out-state student organizer, Andrew Moe, just posted the following update for out-state campuses over on the Students for a Fair Wisconsin blog:

As I sit here in Fair Wisconsin's field office in Eau Claire, I'd like to give you a quick update of our Greater Wisconsin campuses. We have a strong and aggressive field campaign statewide, and coupled with our university and student support, we are reaching more people than we thought possible.

At UW-La Crosse, for instance, our Students for a Fair Wisconsin chapter is dropping thousands of lit pieces each week. In addition to our regular chalkings, volunteer meetings, and pledge-collecting, we are also leading the forces by canvassing our students and neighbors.

UW-Stevens Point continues to amaze everyone in Madison. With 65 people at their kickoff just a few weeks ago, they're still 40 members strong at volunteer meetings. We've been featured on weekly radio programs, reaching both students and community members, and the student organizers are completely committed to our efforts and on message!

Our students at UW-River Falls have some unique challenges ahead of them, but we are going strong! Since the university is on the edge of Wisconsin's border with Minnesota, we're finding many students are worried about losing their Minnesota citizenship if they choose to vote here. Good news, everyone, that won't happen! You don't need to get a Wisconsin driver's license to vote, and you'll still be able to call yourself a Minnesotan. Simply go to the State Elections Board website for more details. That goes for everyone at UW-Stout as well...

Speaking of UW-Stout, we're very excited to start canvassing and speaking with students one-on-one soon. That's because we've noticed some opposition on campus. We have found just yesterday that College Republicans were handing out pieces of wedding cake with some "Vote YES for the Federal Marriage Amendment on Nov. 7" literature. Sorry to tell you, kids, but the Federal Marriage Amendment was defeated some time ago. We're talking about the ban on civil unions and marriage in our state.

UW-Oshkosh has built a solid - and I'm talking SOLID - coalition of volunteers and organizations on their campus. If they're not canvassing, dropping lit, or chalking, you can probably find them either planning A Forum of Faith Perspectives on the Amendment (Oct. 23, 7pm-8:30pm, Reeve Union, Rm 227 C) or on the phones calling up students for support! And this is very good news since it's my largest campus...

And finally, UW-Eau Claire is picking up steam - just when I arrive in town! We are starting our first canvass this week, tabling, dropping lit, and starting some phone banks soon. We have thousands of houses to knock on between now and Nov. 7, and we need all the help we can get!

The student organizers at the Greater Wisconsin campuses are, by far, one in a million. It's difficult to ask someone to give up their lives for ten weeks prior to a mid-term election, and that's exactly what they did. If you, or someone you know, goes to any of these schools, simply email us at students@fairwisconsin.com and we can get you plugged into all of our volunteer opportunities.

Behind the Ban

2006-10-11T14:43:00.000-05:00

Josh has written a little about some of the people and groups who back the ban. He introduced Ralph Ovadal and the Pilgrim's Covenant, the Wisconsin Marriage Defenders (whose member said we "want prostitution, incest, pedophilia, and other perversions" at the Joint Judiciary Committee hearing), and the Family Research Institute.

Today, we put up a new web feature called "Behind the Ban" that has audio clips and quotes from three key figures who are responsible for writing the language of the ban and for getting it on the ballot.

Like we say on the webpage:

While it's critical to conduct a civil debate, it's also critical to reveal the true intentions and attitudes behind the ban. Our opposition has consistently downplayed the reach of the ban and its impact on real Wisconsin families. We must continue to give accurate information to voters about this issue.

Backers of the ban have become very good at covering up their troubling attitudes toward gay people and the consequences of this far-reaching, two-sentence constitutional ban. In fact, Just yesterday, Channel 27 in Madison reported that our opposition is telling some voters the ban's second sentence has been removed.

A Long Commute to Volunteer

2006-10-11T10:21:00.000-05:00

Meet Debbie Rosko. Debbie is a graduate of UW-Madison who has been actively involved with theatre for many years. I first met her in the spring of 2005 when she started a job at the theatre lighting company across the hall from our Madison office. She stopped in one day to see what we were all about. Soon after, she started volunteering.

Debbie recently confessed to me that, like Hannah, she was nervous about volunteering at first. But she started with office work, moved on to phone calls, and never looked back. She became a fixture at our phone canvasses and eventually got so good that she started training other volunteers.

Unfortunately for us, last fall Debbie moved to Phoenix for her job. But the move hasn't kept her from staying active in the campaign. She follows the blog, contributes when she can, and even still volunteers when she returns to visit her family and friends.

Debbie was in town last week and decided this time to give door canvassing a try. When I asked how it went, she told me the story about knocking on her very first door. It was the home of an elderly woman-- and since older people aren't necessarily a demographic we do well with, Debbie was pretty nervous. But apparently, the woman was an actress back in her day and over the years had gotten to know several gay and lesbian people--who she described as some of the "most caring and loving people" she's had the privilege to know. She would definitely be voting "No." She said she wished she could do more to help but that because of a stroke, she was unable to volunteer. Undeterred, the woman got out her checkbook and wrote a check for $10.

Experiences like Debbie's are not at all uncommon as our supporters fan out across the state. Everywhere we go our volunteers are finding people opposed to the ban on civil unions and marriage--often times in places that you might not expect. Whether it's Republicans, labor groups, seniors, people of faith, business leaders or legal experts: everyone seems to agree that the amendment would be a huge mistake for our state.

Thanks Debbie for sticking with the campaign from afar, and for continuing to volunteer with us when you're here!

Reach out ... reach back ...

2006-10-11T08:07:00.000-05:00

Recently, the finance team of Fair Wisconsin asked me to help them organize a Chicago event. In a previous life, I was in the convention/event industry and based in Chicago, but after almost ten years in Wisconsin, a lot of my connections there are, uh, rusty.

Nonetheless, I thought I’d give it a try.

It’s been simultaneously taxing and fun to remember, identify and locate old friends and colleagues, and I’m excited at the opportunity to invite them to join the campaign. Illinois is lucky. Our southern neighbor almost had one of these hideous amendment battles on their ballot this November, but the proponents apparently had some difficulty with their petition. A win in Wisconsin will go a long way toward helping other states like Illinois prevent more erosion of our rights and liberties.

I suspect we have quite a few blogger readers from the Chicago area, and quite a few more who know people in Chicago. Here’s a chance to do your part. Invite your friends to learn more about the campaign, and contribute to the final push for equality on the November ballot.

But whatever part of the state or nation you, the reader, are from, now's the time to step up one more time. Who do you know that you haven't talked with yet?

Reach out. Reach back.

The Magic Bullet

2006-10-10T18:21:00.000-05:00

One of the first things I did when I got to Milwaukee was put up an office wish list. This way, people who stop into our field office can see what we need and are encouraged donate any extra supplies that they may have lying around. Our wish list has things like computer paper, rubber bands, and food for volunteers.

Nick and Matt wanted me to add the "Magic Bullet" to our wish list. They explained that the Magic Bullet is an all purpose blender that would allow us to make things like smoothies and salsa. Since we practically live in this office, how could I say no to such a useful tool?

Throughout the past few months, volunteers have donated some well-needed supplies, such as tape, highlighters, and staples, but I never expected anyone to actually bring in a magic bullet -- until today.

Last week, two of our star volunteers -- Jenna and Amanda (both students from Alverno College) -- copied down our wishlist so they could bring it back to their dorm to see what they had lying around. Today, they actually came in with a Magic Bullet. But what's even more incredible is that they used their student food-cards to buy food for our volunteers.

Students for a Fair Wisconsin in the News

2006-10-10T15:50:00.000-05:00

Students for a Fair Wisconsin received a lot of fantastic media coverage again last week, due in part to the UW Board of Regents coming out against the ban. Both the Badger Herald (here, here and here) and the Daily Cardinal (here and here) provided coverage of the decision. Bassey Etim applauds the Board of Regents' decision in a column in the Badger Herald, writing:

The marriage amendment is simply bad business for UW schools and hurts our ability to compete with other university systems.

Further, he explains why our opposition (despite broad support for Fair Wisconsin from people of all walks of life) tends to paint the issue along partisan lines:

[State Representatives Steve] Nass and [Mark] Gundrum change the issue from gay marriage to Doyle's politics because they have no credible evidence to back up their theory that gay marriage would be so detrimental to our society that a ban must be written into our states Constitution. The regents took a risk by formulating an official policy because gubernatorial candidate Mark Green has expressed his distaste with a number of university policies and could inflame anti-UW sentiment across the state. Nonetheless, UW has a duty to stand by its faculty, especially when regressive legislation like this has already resulted in the loss of quality instructors. UWs responsibility goes beyond political impact.

The Daily Cardinal also published a report on the significance of the student vote. UW-Madison Professor Joe Elder explained:

This amendment would be crushingly defeated with the students I deal with. For this group, gay marriage is not a problem. The overwhelming sense I get from the class is, what's the big deal?

Finally, reports on debates held at UW-Madison, UW-Oshkosh, UW-Platteville, and Marquette appeared in campus papers. And we also had letters to the editor published in the Badger Herald and the UW-River Falls Student Voice.

The coverage of students working against the ban has been widespread and overwhelmingly shows that students are doing what it will take to make a difference on November 7.

Note: this entry also appears on the Students for a Fair Wisconsin blog.

Students Travel to Help our Campaign

2006-10-10T14:19:00.000-05:00

This weekend in Milwaukee, we were lucky enough to have 62 College Democrats from around the country come door-to-door with us.

Students came from nearby states like Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota, and from places as far away as Nevada, Texas, and Florida.

These students knocked on almost 4,000 doors and had face-to-face conversations with over 1,100 voters. But what was most remarkable about this weekend was not the voter contact. Instead it was the fact that all of these students traveled miles and miles to help defeat the ban on civil unions and marriage here in Wisconsin, in the face of important political struggles in their home states, and despite the fact that many of them are not only extremely busy trying to graduate, but are also working a number of jobs to put themselves through college.

Each of them made their way to Milwaukee knowing how important it is that we fight this ban here in Wisconsin, because on November 7, when we’re the first state to defeat one of these amendments, we’re going to make history.

The Faith Community Debate in the Madison Area

2006-10-10T11:06:00.000-05:00

Kenneth Burns penned an in-depth feature about the Madison faith community debate over the civil unions and marriage ban for Isthmus.

It's the first article I've seen that interrogates Julaine Appling's claim that they have the support of 4,000 to 5,000 churches. Burn interviews a number of Madison-area Christian leaders. There's a great sidebar that shows the list of Dane County clergy publicly supporting a no vote and those supporting a yes vote. (It shows more clergy on our side.)

Some of the clergy who are considered more conservative are not jumping up and down about the ban. There seems to be the same lack of enthusiasm we see in other quarters (like the way state lawmakers who voted for the ban rarely speak about it nowadays).

Burns interviewed Chris Dolson, the senior pastor at Blackhawk Church, a west-side “mega-church” that attracts more than 3,000 worshippers each week.

While [Dolson] affirms that the Bible says the only appropriate sexual relationships are between married men and women, he says the amendment has not come up in his conversations, and he will not preach about it.
Like a growing number of evangelical preachers, Dolson believes church is not an appropriate place to discuss politics. "It's not an issue of this or that amendment," he says. "What's more important, following Christ, or following our Legislature?"

But Dolson encourages churchgoers to consider Christian ethics as they ponder the amendment’s possible effects on the gay community. "Put yourselves in their shoes," he says. "Do you think it would be beneficial to them? The whole thing about people not being able to see their dying spouse because they’re not married, to me that's not fair."

On the Family Research Institute Web site is a pledge form asking state pastors to "speak out publicly in support of Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Amendment." More than 200 pastors have signed, including Catholics, evangelicals and mainline Protestants. Appling says the form was sent only to clergy members likely to sign, not to liberal pastors: "I don't have that kind of time to spend on those folks."

Still, not everyone who received the pledge has signed it. Among the refusniks is Ed Killeen, pastor of Lake Trails Presbyterian Church in Madison. Lake Trails is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America, a historically conservative branch.

"I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," says Killeen. "But I believe the government and the people have the obligation to uphold the civil rights of citizens."

Does Killian support civil unions? "That's something that can be taken up in the Legislature as an issue for debate," he says. "I don't think [civil unions are] inconsistent with either what our nation was founded on, or the Biblical principles to care for the rights of individuals."

Mike Moore, pastor of Madison’s Faith Community Bible Church, also received the pledge and declined to sign. "I get lots of things from everybody who wants you to do what they want you to do," he says. "I don't have time for all those sorts of things."

To be sure, there are plenty of faith institutions supporting a yes vote, and we shouldn't underestimate what may be unfolding under the radar, church by church. But it's encouraging to read about faith communities you might assume are working to pass the ban but are clearly not excited about it.

Check out the full article.

Custard & Canvassing

2006-10-10T08:31:00.000-05:00

Custard breaks have become a regular occurrence at the Green Bay office. I like to think that I do my best brainstorming over a cup of ice cream or custard.

Fortunately for me, the Fair Wisconsin Green Bay office is located next door to a custard and burger stand. I soon learned that Zesty’s is a local institution in Green Bay. Besides serving food, the business also serves as our point of reference when we tell supporters where our office is located. “Our office is on Greene Ave. and Libal St., right next to Zesty’s” has become a common way of explaining our location.

On Saturday, Zesty’s became more than a point of reference by giving Fair Wisconsin canvassers a discount on their purchases after they returned from educating voters. Many of the FW volunteers were happy to see that the flavor of the day was chocolate caramel pecan while others went with the daily staples of chocolate or vanilla. Personally, I prefer the chocolate, but I enjoy them all. Custard and canvassing, what could be better?

Many other businesses across the state have also been helping. Some donate food or services while others post our signs in their store front. Every little bit helps.

If you’re ever in Green Bay, come down to the office, make some phone calls, talk to some voters, and grab some custard too. If you don’t know where we’re located, it’s right next to Zesty’s.

The Yes Side's Media Fall Back Guy

2006-10-09T14:46:00.000-05:00

We've been hearing from reporters, editors, and event organizers that Julaine and Company are turning down media and debate opportunities. As a result, others have stood up to take their place. Most prominent among them is Rick Esenberg, who will be debating the ban in a mock trial on Wisconsin Public Television on October 25th.

He's an attorney in Milwaukee, occasionally teaches at Marquette Law School, and has a blog called Shark and Shepherd.

At first, he seems like an odd choice for a spokesman: back in October he wrote about the second sentence, "I have to admit that I don't much like it." (How many people back an amendment to the constitution when they only like half of it? It strikes me as profoundly reckless.)

The picture becomes clearer when we note that Esenberg has begun working with the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been at the forefront in pushing bans across the country. He contributes to their blog, Constitutionally Correct.

Over the weekend, Esenberg strongly criticized the UW Board of Regents' decision to formally oppose the ban because it threatens to prevent the UW System from ever extending equal benefits to gay employees and their families.

In it, he makes a somewhat surprising argument that Wisconsin's ban won't touch partner benefits:

As to the merits, the idea that the amendment would prohibit the university from extending benefits to an employee's designated domestic partner seems to be weak. It is inconsistent with the amendment's language (giving someone health insurance does not create or recognize a status substantially similar to marriage) and is contrary to the expressed intent of the amendment's author. I know that some people take the opposing view, but it strikes me as a stretch.

Not just "some people." Your colleagues, Rick.

ADF's m.o. is to go around the country chipping away at what meager gains gay families have made. Their attorneys have helped draft amendments across the country, and may very well have had a hand in drafting ours. Banning domestic partner benefits isn't peripheral to what they do: it's part of their core mission.

To sample just a few cases:

They sued (and lost) to overturn domestic partner benefits offered by the Madison School District. (There was no constitutional ban on civil unions to bolster their claims.)

After voters in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, voted to provide gay and non-gay city employees with equal benefits policies, ADF (you guessed it) sued (Plain Dealer Reporter, 2/24/04). (So much for letting the voters decide.)

They used Utah's ban to sue Salt Lake City over its domestic partner benefits.

And now they're suing Miami University, saying that Ohio's amendment renders that institution's domestic partner benefits unconstitutional. According to their press release: "Miami University's creation of 'domestic partnerships' is quite clearly in violation of the state constitution."

In addition, they've sued to take away gay families' health care in Minneapolis, Chicago, New Orleans, San Jose, and Thurston County (WA).

Moreover, they emphatically interpret these bans to deny even the slightest recognition of gay families, for whatever purpose. To ADF, giving someone health insurance absolutely does create or recognize a status substantially similar to marriage.

Michael Johnson, one of Esenberg's ADF colleagues, put their position quite clearly when talking about the impact of Louisiana's new amendment on an ongoing ADF challenge to New Orlean's domestic partner policy: "I think and would argue that a domestic partnership is, quote-unquote, substantially similar to marriage" (AP, 9/22/04).

David Langdon and Joshua Bolinger, two of Esenberg's ADF colleagues, just submitted a brief asking Ohio's Supreme Court to use that state's ban to overturn domestic violence protections for all unmarried couples. In it, they directly counter Esenberg's pre-election interpretation of the Wisconsin ban: "The focus of the second sentence of the Marriage Amendment is not on the benefits or obligations assigned to those in the relationship which is given a legal status--it is on the status itself"; and it "proscribes the very legal recognition of the relationships in the first place, for any purpose" (emphases theirs).

(Langdon helped write the Ohio amendment and is also involved in the challenge to Miami University's domestic partner policy.)

Esenberg works with an organization passionately opposed to providing gay families with any measure of fair treatment. So when he says that the Wisconsin ban wouldn't touch gay families' health care--when he offers an interpretation counter to the one put forth by ADF attorneys across the country--count me as deeply skeptical.

If our ban passes, is Esenberg saying that ADF won't sue here? Or that he won't take part in such a suit? Somehow, I doubt it.

Courage

2006-10-09T11:29:00.000-05:00

Back in December I signed up to attend a Speakers Training. I was excited to go, but when the day of the training rolled around I started to get nervous. I wasn’t sure what I'd have to do at the training, and I really didn’t want to have to talk in front of a whole bunch of people. But I gathered my courage and went, because defeating the ban was important to me. It turned out to be really fun; I met Ingrid, Lindsey and a whole bunch of fair-minded people. So began my journey with Fair Wisconsin.

After the Speakers Training I decided that I had to do what I could to defeat the amendment or I couldn’t complain about it if it passed; so I signed up for Tuesday night volunteer night. I woke up on Tuesday and I started to get nervous again. I worried about what they were going to make me do, that I wouldn’t be good at whatever they needed me to do, and that I was going to be the only new person. I called Fair Wisconsin and made some excuses. I told them I had to work until 6 (which was true) and since volunteer night started at 6 I would have to be late, so I should probably just skip it, right?

Pabitra said no. She was adamant that I come in to volunteer even if I was late. So I gathered my courage again and walked to 122 State Street after work. Volunteering turned out to be not so scary; I met some cool people and Lindsey taught me how to use FileMaker.

From that Tuesday on I volunteered every Tuesday night. Some nights I got home from work feeling pretty tired, and sitting on the couch and watching TV was very tempting. But I knew Fair Wisconsin was counting on me, so I went in every night. I never regretted volunteering once I got there. The staff was always so friendly and helpful, even if I had to ask them the same questions a few times. It also felt good to be part of a team that was fighting for something I felt so strongly about.

Slowly I built up my courage and worked up to phone calls and door canvasses. Eventually I started to help run volunteer nights and canvasses. Since I had taken on so many responsibilities at Fair Wisconsin, Pabitra asked me if I would consider moving to open an office somewhere in greater Wisconsin. I didn’t hesitate. I said no.

Defeating the ban is very important to me. I was raised to believe that everyone deserves equal rights; regardless of the gender of the person they love. Being a part of the campaign has meant doing many things that make my palms sweat and my stomach feel queasy, but I cannot sit by and watch this ban pass.

So I gathered up my courage one more time and went back and said ok. A few weeks later I packed up my car and moved out to Eau Claire to open an office. It hasn’t been easy every step of the way, but I’ve never regretted it. Being involved in this campaign has been the most important thing I have ever done in my life; I’ll do what it takes to make sure we win.

Why this Republican is Voting No

2006-10-09T09:02:00.000-05:00

Over the weekend, the Wisconsin State Journal published an excellent op-ed by Bob Hall, the former Republican whip of the Massachusetts Senate. Hall now lives in Madison and ardently opposes the ban. He writes:

My fellow Republicans believe that gay marriage is a wedge issue, which will bring socially-conservative voters to the polls. And while their votes won't change anything on gay marriage, they figure those voters will also support Republicans, perhaps with enough votes to keep control of the Legislature and win the governor's office.

I'd like to tell you that in my five terms in the Massachusetts Senate I never played politics with issues like this. And I'd like to tell you that I'm tall, rich and good- looking, but that wouldn't be true either.

The fact is, I was a pretty successful politician, and I knew how to play popular issues. Since I'd like to see Mark Green in the governor's office, and intend to vote mostly - probably exclusively - for Republicans this November, I should like this issue, right?

But it's not just bad government, it's bad politics. There are a lot more gay folks than my fellow Republicans believe, though many are pretty quiet about it, given the prejudice that still exists in our society. When you add up all of their family members and friends, that's a pretty big chunk of voters to write off.

Contrary to popular opinion, gays and their families don't think alike on every issue. Many of them are conservative on spending, taxes, crime and national security.

I want their votes on my side on those much more important issues. I don't want to drive them away from our party for a short-term political gain. Nor do I want them voting as a bloc against Republicans this November.

Hall certainly isn't the only Republican voting "No" this November. You can read a few Republican Voices for No and learn why other conservatives are voting against the ban at our Republicans for a Fair Wisconsin web page.

Report from Stevens Point Office

2006-10-08T11:18:00.000-05:00

Jamie Yuenger, our organizer in Stevens Point, wrote in last night with a report and photos from their Saturday canvass. In the student-sponsored canvass, more than 20 volunteers hit the streets to talk to central Wisconsin voters about the ban. All of our offices have been holding canvasses at least three times a week. If you haven't signed up yet, you can plug in by using our events calendar.

African-American Leaders Oppose the Ban

2006-10-07T12:38:00.000-05:00

Today we begin blogging on Saturdays and Sundays--seven days a week--since the campaign is in high gear and there's lots to report.

In case you missed it, earlier this week, we sent out press releases announcing African-American leaders in Madison and the Milwaukee area who oppose the civil unions and marriage ban.

The following Madison elected leaders publicly oppose the ban:

Dane County Supervisor Richard Brown
Dane County Supervisor Sheila Stubbs
Madison Common Council Ald. Brian Benford
Madison Common Council Ald. Isadore Knox, Jr.
Madison School Board President Johnny Winston, Jr.

Knox expressed his concern that, “if passed, this ban would negatively impact all kinds of families across the state, the Black community included.”

And the following Milwaukee-area leaders also oppose the ban:

Elected Officials
Former Secretary of State Vel Phillips
Congresswoman Gwen Moore
State Senator Lena Taylor
State Senator Spencer Coggs
Assembly Rep. Jason Fields
Assembly Rep. Leon Young
Assembly Rep. Tamara Grigsby
Assembly Rep. Robert Turner
Assembly Rep. Barbara Toles
Milwaukee County Supervisor James G. White
Milwaukee County Supervisor Elizabeth Coggs-Jones
Milwaukee City Alderman Michael McGee, Jr.
Milwaukee City Alderman Willie C. Wade
Supervisor Willie Johnson Jr.

Clergy
Pastor Olin Arrington
Pastor Robert Redd
Reverend Joseph Jackson
Reverend William E. Robbins
Pastor Charles Thornhill
Pastor Robert Wilson
Pastor Oscar Elim
Pastor Charles Green
Reverend Lloyd Wright
Reverend J.R. Walton
Reverend Martin Childs
Reverend Charles Watkins

The "No on the Amendment" Blog Team

2006-10-06T14:47:00.001-05:00

Now that we’re down to a month until Election Day we’re going blog more often and check in more frequently with statewide activities. To do that, we’ve enlisted a few more bloggers.

I thought I’d take a minute to introduce (and re-introduce) the folks who are on the ground running the campaign, and who will share their stories here.

Hannah Johnson is our Eau Clare field organizer. She started as a superstar volunteer in Madison, was hired in July, and shipped up north to find herself an apartment and office space soon after. Prior to joining the staff, she answered a few questions about why she got involved in the campaign. Hannah will start writing for us next week.

Follow interstate 29 to the east and you’ll find Mitch Wallace leading the Green Bay/Fox Valley team. Mitch volunteered some long hours with us back in March when we kicked off Fair Wisconsin. Back in July he shared why this issue is important to him. He will also start writing next week.

Matt Berg is hands-down one of our hardest-working interns. Matt works closely with student organizers in Madison and with the communications team on staff. He’ll be cross posting here and at the Students for a Fair Wisconsin blog which he runs.

Coleman has been with us for the long haul and now volunteers full-time on the campaign. He’s worked the southwest region of the state organizing door canvasses, fundraisers, and speaking engagements. He also runs wisconsinwontdiscriminate.com.

Updating us on the faith-related news of the campaign is Eric Peterson. His desk is stationed in Madison, but he’s often seated behind the steering wheel traveling the state. Check out our Faith Outreach page to see some of the events and outreach Eric oversees.

Shira Roza started working on the campaign and writing for the blog back in March when we kicked-off Fair Wisconsin. At the time, she was organizing the western side of the state, but since then has moved to Milwaukee to be the field director of Wisconsin’s largest city. Recently, she wrote about the operations there.

Organizing Madison and the whole south central region of the state is Pabitra Benjamin. Since she started writing back in January, she’s written some of my favorite entries including this introduction to the Madison field staff, this conversation with her brother and his girlfriend, and her recap of the colossal coalition canvass she helped pull together.

Justin Sweet started as a Madison organizer, but slowly transitioned into tech/data guy. He’s saved me from having to deal with the dreaded “my internet is down” call, and now spends many late nights with our database and data-guru-volunteers Jeff Kruger and David Reese. My favorite post of Justin’s is this conversation with his grandpa.

Mike Tate is the boss of the Fair Wisconsin campaign. He’s usually on the phone, on the road, in a meeting, or debating Julaine, but when he has the time to blog, he’s written some great entries. I especially like the one he wrote about filming Lynn’s ad.

And then there are the three of us who have been with the blog for nearly a year.

Lindsey Saunders, now the statewide field director, has had a job that’s evolved with the campaign and has taken her around (and around) the state. A few of my favorite posts from Lindsey are “No Pausing in Central Wisconsin,” and the one about the time she happened upon Feingold’s listening session in Stevens Point.

Josh Freker is the communications director and has been getting ready for this November for at least three years now. He's written some zingers like this three part series on backers of the ban and my most recent fav, "Julaine Appling Knows Best." He's also shared his personal side with this confession and in a conversation with his dad.

And then there's me. As communications associate I run the website and design all of the merchandise everyone keeps asking for (you'll get your yard sign soon). I've been with the campaign for just over a year. Quite possibly the highlight of my year on the blog was this month-long blog debate I had with Owen during August.

UW Board of Regents Opposes the Ban

2006-10-06T11:30:00.000-05:00

Today in Platteville, the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents committee voted to oppose the constitutional ban.

According to this AP story , their opposition stems from their concern over the second sentence and how it would impact the UW System's ability to offer benefits to gay and lesbian partners.

Regents, who govern the UW System of 13 four-year universities and 13 two-year colleges, said the amendment would threaten the state's ability to provide domestic partner benefits.

The board has long lobbied the Legislature to lift a ban on health and other benefits for partners of gay employees.

UW-Madison is the only school in the Big 10 conference that does not offer the benefits -- a policy that recently prompted a star nanotechnology researcher to leave.

The Badger Herald reports that speaking in favor of domestic partner benefits and against the amendment were representatives from Lands' End, Foot Locker, and the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce who came out strongly against the ban in August.

“[Lands’ End and Foot Locker] spoke about why domestic partners benefits are important,” Pruitt said. “And the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce was specific about opposing the amendment.”

The Lands’ End and Foot Locker representatives said 40 percent of Wisconsin companies already have domestic partner benefits, Pruitt added.

First Baptist Does It Again!

2006-10-06T09:18:00.000-05:00

Our friends at First Baptist Church in Madison, led by Rev. Mark Clinger and Mary Fiore, have gone one step further in their congregational dialogue and action against the ban than other faith communities. They scheduled a full series of discussions about the ban and its implications on families and society from now through the end of October. I encourage you to check it out and attend.

The series, entitled "The Legal Definition of Marriage," speaks to the heart of a lot of faithful people’s questions about this amendment and the attempt to truly "define marriage." You see, when people have to define a family in the technical way that the law needs, it becomes very hard to find the right language to define a family without excluding people not fitting the "traditional" definition. Try it right now. Define the word family but don’t exclude same-sex couples, single parent families, unmarried heterosexual unions, and other diverse expressions of families.

It’s a little tricky isn’t it?

But the answer lies in the heart of the Gospel, as First Baptist and so many other churches have proclaimed. Families, unions, marriages, and relationships that grow in love together find their foundation, strength, and nutrients for growth in God. Hence, if these things come from God, which human can take them away? Remember the old words from weddings, “That which God has brought together, let no man tear asunder!” Divine love creates a family, the differences make no difference. We know God doesn’t see the differences you and I have. I’m white, you may be black. I’m male, you may be female. I’m gay, you may be straight. It makes no difference; we are precious individual lives to God; lives that God created.

This series is a wonderful series of discussion highlighting the changing definition of relationships, the changing role of sexuality in the world, and the changing voice of the church in her ministry, all with one unchanging truth—That God loves each and every one of us!

Peace,
Eric

$1 a Day

2006-10-05T16:23:00.000-05:00

The finish line is in sight. We have only 33 more days until Election Day, and it's time to pick up the pace.

Thousands of you are out there at the doors, on the phones, and in our field offices volunteering, but the finance staff tells me we still have a lot of money to raise.

This week we need another $45,000 to keep our TV ads on the air. To help raise the cash, we're asking folk to donate just $1 a day until November 7.

C'mon. You can do it. For less than a cup of coffee...

Student Voices for No (Part Two)

2006-10-05T16:15:00.000-05:00

Today was a big day for the Madison Chapter of Students for a Fair Wisconsin. As part of our "Voices for No" campaign this week, we dropped 10,000 pieces of lit on both Wednesday and Thursday morning and set up a display on Thursday on Bascom Hill:

And as promised, here are the final six voices for no:

"I'm voting no on November 7th because the greatest commandment of my faith is 'Love thy neighbor as thyself.' The teachings of Jesus Christ tell us to love and accept each other, not to judge or discriminate."

-Tonya Neumann, sophomore

"I'm voting no on November 7th because the amendment bans civil unions, a practical, moral and legal alternative to marriage, and that goes too far."

-David Lapidus, active conservative on campus and blogger at Letters in Bottles

"I'm voting no on November 7th because I believe in the liberation of all oppressed peoples."

-Mingwei Huang, junior

"I'm voting no on November 7th because I believe that everyone deserves the right to be happy."

-Will Endres, freshman

"I'm voting no on November 7th because I don't believe the government should intrude into the personal lives of its citizens."

-Amanda Bychinski, sophomore

"I'm voting no on November 7th because I don't want my adopted home state to abandon its history of leadership. In the civil rights battle of our generation, I want my voice to be heard."

-Eli Judge, chair of Students for a Fair Wisconsin

Earlier today, I was stopped by a student who said to me: "Thanks for doing this. It's so great that you guys emphasized real faces and the voices of real people this week." Our "Voices for No" campaign has been quite successful in showing the diverse backgrounds and motivations of taking a stand on this issue, and it shows that students will help make history on Election Day.

Note: This entry also appears on the Students for a Fair Wisconsin blog.

Josy Hits 100k

2006-10-05T14:04:00.000-05:00

A fun thing happened on the way to Racine this morning.

My car, affectionately named Josy, and I have spent over 35,000 miles together on this campaign. She’s the friend I’ve spent the most time with these past two years, not my favorite co-worker, but perhaps top 10 in reliability (she hasn’t given me a single problem yet!). I’m averaging 50 miles a day, and to put it all in perspective, 35,000 miles is about 128 round trips between Madison and Green Bay.

I just hope Josy makes it to the end of the campaign, at which point I’ll sell her. Let me know if you’re in need of a hard-working, reliable buddy in November.