Help me with this Gay Marriage Amendment backer in Milwaukee!

[WillParkinson]

First, my letter to this "person":

Despite what you "think"...

Gay marriage has gone on for years.

My partner and I had our ceremony 19 years ago. We've outlasted a majority of our straight friends. You seem to think that nothing happens to gays should the state pass a Constitutional Amendment barring gay marriage and similar arrangements but you're wrong.

Never mind it'd be the first time in Wisconsin history that an amendment has been aimed at a particular group.

Never mind that the ONLY reason it's being forced out now is politics. You cannot honestly say that the politicians give a whit about gay marriage. They're using it to political advantage. And that's ALL this is about. How do I know this? Because your paper had an article in it that had a quote from a politician that says if it doesn't pass they'll resubmit it until it does. So if the people say "no" that's not good enough. We MUST do it until it's done.

Never mind that you can say that gays are going to force their standards on everyone else, even though that's exactly what Republicans are trying to do with this bill. Trying to force their view of what the world should be like, using religious beliefs as a driving force, though religion should stay out of government just as government is expected to stay out of religion.

What does happen if this amendment passes? Gays get qualified as second class citizens. Basically we're told to shut up and pay your taxes.

When my partner was in the hospital for heart surgery, if his family decided I shouldn't be allowed in I could have been kept out because I wasn't "immediate family". All the money I've paid in to the government won't go to my spouse. All the money we've earned and paid taxes on gets taxed heavier by the government because we're not "married". We can be denied housing in some instances because we're not "married".

Say what you want. I'm just as married as anyone else is. But I don't get the benefits that others do. Benefits that I should be just as entitled to as you or anyone else.

Imagine 40 years ago if politicians had tried to pass this regarding interracial marriage. Or, since allegedly marriage is supposed to be about creating a family, they made an amendment outlawing older couples from being wed. Or how about a law forcing married couples who don't want children to have them.

This is hatred and bigotry. Call it what you want. You know it is.

Will Bowden

This is his reply:

Dear Mr. Bowden:

First, thanks for reading my blog, and thanks for taking the time to write.

Here’s the thing: If you’re “married,” even without any of the legal accoutrements that the amendment — and our present law — would reserve for woman-man couples, then what more do you need?

You and your partner have your love, your commitment, the blessing of your friends. Does the amendment remove any of that?

No.

And nothing in the amendment tries to, nor do any of the amendment backers suggest the law should remove any of those things. The amendment does only this: it says that a court cannot make universal the esteem offered by your social circle, cannot say that society as a whole must honor your arrangement as if it were a marriage.

So who, then, is doing the forcing of values? Have any of these Republican politicians said they want to break up you and your partner? No. Have any said they want to bar you and your partner from granting each other a medical power of attorney, so his family cannot bar you from his hospital bedside? No. Is anyone trying to make your love illegal? No, of course not, and it ill suits the argument to suggest that’s the motive.

Don’t even accuse me of forcing a religious view onto anyone: I have carefully avoided commenting on the rightness or wrongness of homosexual relations and have made my arguments in entirely secular terms. I mention religion only from the standpoint of its objections being suppressed once same-sex marriage is imposed by a court. We know this is a danger; it has happened in both Massachusetts and some California cities.

What has happened nowhere in any of the states that passed such amendments is an attempt to enlist the law to break up couples like you and your partner. If such amendments really are about bigotry, they’ve proved a remarkable failure, then.

Similarly, don’t even try the claim that this is like post-Civil War laws on miscegenation. They were, first, largely a peculiarity in a human history where ethnic mixing is the norm. Same-sex marriages, publicly honored, have been the norm in no human society, and for good reason: While someone from this ethnicity and someone from that can marry and do the essential thing of marriage — produce a child — two men or two women cannot.

You’d get farther if you’d admit that the fight for gay marriage isn’t about benefits in the end, that it is about winning society’s approbation for homosexual relationships. Just say it, that the real goal is for society to regard same-sex unions as the equal in every way of woman-and-man marriages, and for society to be purged of any remaining view that homosexuality is disordered or objectionable on moral grounds.

Sincerely;

Pat McIlheran.

And my last message to him
"and for society to be purged of any remaining view that homosexuality is disordered or objectionable on moral grounds."

Thanks for this line.

And thanks for admitting to the bigotry I was suggesting. Goes a long way to proving my points. I am hardly "disordered" and as for "objectionable on moral grounds" I'd like to point out how fluid morals are. It's funny how people are always saying something is immoral in someone else's life but never seem to find the little glitches in their own.

You're going to see the fight however you want because, and be honest, you have no knowledge of what it's like to be gay and trying to be a family. I'd seriously doubt if you know any committed gay couples at all.

The amendment does not try to "break us up". True enough. The strain on gay couples and families does that enough. While your group is finger pointing at every opportunity about how "disordered and morally objectionable" we are, especially when it comes to passing laws such as this.

What does this amendment do? Simply enough it takes away peoples rights to have their day in court. Your group talks about "activist judges". That is so tired already. Every judge is an activist judge. If you want to do away with that then just do away with the judicial system altogether.

Do I want my relationship recognized by you or anyone else? Honestly, I don't care. My family and friends are the only recognition I need. But I'm not every gay couple. I'm me. But I support the rights of those who do want to have their relationship recognized and celebrated.

And as for the benefits, yes. I do want my spouse to be able to collect on the things that I've paid in for. I do want to have the right to be able to list myself as Married on tax forms and get the breaks that others get. I do want what others have the right to get. Why? Because I'm just like everyone else. I've paid for it with my taxes, my commitment to my community, and my love of friends and family.

So sorry if you don't get that.


I know I'm going to get a snarky message back. Give me something pithy to say. :-)

[Warpy]

1. Pat just doesn't get it

Marriage is a legal contract whereby a non relative is promoted to first degree relative. You can do much of what it does with other, more expensive contracts, but there are a few things marriage confers that those arrangements don't.

You may be married in your eyes, the eyes of your friends, and as far as most folks go. However, if one of you falls seriously ill, that ceremony won't get the other into an ICU if some homophobe among the blood relatives forbids it. Nor will it allow you to determine funeral arrangements should the worst happen. Nor will it provide for automatic custody transfer if you've adopted children together. Blood relatives can and do interfere with all those things. I know, I'm a nurse who has had to sneak life partners into the ICU in the wee hours after I've packed family off to rest. I could have gotten fired for it, too.

That's what Pat doesn't get. He's entitled to all the shoes and rice of his church and his traditions, and he's allowed to be exclusive about them. However, we do have an equal protection clause in this country, and the civil contract needs to be made available to consenting adults without exception.

[AllegroRondo]

2. It all comes down to gender discrimination

If they pass this law, they are saying that some people cannot enter into a legal contract solely because of their gender. ie - a woman can marry a man, but a man cannot.
Does a man have a 'separate but equal' right to marry a woman? Sorry, 'separate but equal' rights were banished 50 years ago.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Ask him if he's ever read the Constitution of the United States and/or

that of your state. Where does it say that 'married' people should have more rights than others? Ask him what 'equal treatment in the eyes of the law' should mean?

[VeggieTart]

4. When a hetero couple gets married...

...there are hundreds of federal and state rights that accede with that little piece of paper. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to get the marriage license and pay the officiant to marry you than it is to do all the legal wrangling and paperwork to ensure you have rights if something should happen to your life partner and vice versa.

[MrCoffee]

5. Ask him why he hates battered women...

Ohio's anti-gay marriage amendment was interpreted by Ohio state courts to prohibit prosecutors from bringing domestic violence charges against hetero couples who live together. DV charges are much more severe than the simple assault charges that are now the only recourse against guys who beat the shit out of thier live-in girlfriends.

These amendments have repercussions far beyond gay marriage.

*I'm using the term "gay marriage" just because i don't know what else to call it. As a straight guy, i always feel kind of weird talking about "gay marriage", because it feels disrespectful to me, like i'm differentiating or something. Not that you care at all...

[LeftHander]

6. Pat's quote says it all...Conservatives ARE homophobes.

"You’d get farther if you’d admit that the fight for gay marriage isn’t about benefits in the end, that it is about winning society’s approbation for homosexual relationships. Just say it, that the real goal is for society to regard same-sex unions as the equal in every way of woman-and-man marriages, and for society to be purged of any remaining view that homosexuality is disordered or objectionable on moral grounds."

He is right. We all do want to purge society of that viewpoint.

Actually you won't get any farther arguing with him. His mind is made up.

The above statement flatly says he is willing to confront you and is perfectly willing to discriminate against you simply because of your sexual preference. He is relying on society's homophobic leanings to allow these kinds of measures to pass. So him wanting to argue on that point is so easy for him. Marriage protection proponents simply do not feel gay people deserve equal status in society. He believes that "homosexuality is disordered and objectionable on moral grounds" and thus can easily de-humanize gay people and relegate them to something less that equal. Because he is heterosexual he feels he is "normal" and anything that it outside of his definition of "normal" is to be cast away.

This is basic ignorance, dangerous and history has shown that this attitude ultimately leads to the most horrific of human tragedies, genocide. Because when push come to shove and people are rounding up and killing gay people, attitudes like this will simply allow the person to look the other way while someone else does the dirty work.

He does not hide that fact with his statement above. He does not care about your rights as a human being because he does not and never will consider you as an equal. He finds homosexuality repugnant and people who make that choice are to be shunned. That is the sad state that the caustic divide of our political environment has created.

Open discrimination, legalized and expressed as a majority vote sets the stage for further atrocities to human dignity. The right has forgot that the concepts fairness and equality have allowed this nation to progress beyond slavery and civil war and battles the tragedy of the racial division that still predominates in our culture.

Of course the "Pat" answer to this is "ridiculous" Pat would never support the extermination of gay people. But deep down if it was happening. Pat would not lay down his life to protect a unknown homosexual. And that is the real tragedy.

Pat is morally wrong on this issue on so many levels...that all you have to do is ask:

"Would you openly discriminate against a gay person?"

He will of course say no of course not.

Then ask him again how he feels voting to change the constitution of the State of Wisconsin to exclude same sex couples and from entering into a legal marriage is not doing exactly that?

Voting "Yes" on Wisconsin's Marriage amendment IS voting to discriminate. To create a perceived protection one group of people at the cost excluding another is discrimination.

I would not waste anymore time on this closet "hater". Just out him for what he is...and tell him to admit that he is for discrimination and he better be prepared to see it through to it's bitter conclusion or stop now and vote "NO".

[WillParkinson]

7. Actually, I think we finished our "talk"

His Final Reply

You seem to assume that I oppose gay marriage because I don't know enough
about gay couples, or don't feel deeply enough their need for it.

To the contrary: I know they want it and am sympathetic. That sympathy,
however, doesn't win the argument.

You say that I (or anyone else) can still disapprove of gay marriage, should
it be legalized. How? Can a Catholic hospital, for instance, decide not to
extend spouse benefits to an employee? No -- as we have seen from exactly
such cases in Massachusetts. Will a private club be allowed to refuse to
rent its hall to a gay marriage ceremony because it feels such a marriage to
be wrong? No, as we have seen from other cases.

In fact, it's plain that while I will be able to object to gay marriage in
my mind, I will not be allowed to let that conviction govern anything I do.
In what I do, I'll be required by law to presume a gay marriage is just the
same as a real marriage -- because by law it will be one.

For that matter, I won't even be able to tell my kids one view or the other
on gay marriage without schools being required to say otherwise. That's
exactly what's happened in Massachusetts.

Pat.

My Final Reply
If you're sympathetic to it then you should not be supporting this
amendment. Plain and simple.

You SHOULD be trying to find common grounds to grant gay couples something
you can live with and something that they can live with. Yes, both sides
might not be totally happy with the outcome, but it's better than what this
amendment proposes. Especially when this amendment goes beyond just
marriage.

As for a Catholic hospital, again, a choice of religion does not exempt
anyone from the law. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. Using this you
could say that if a gay man checked into a Catholic hospital they should
have the right to refuse services because he is gay.

And using your thoughts it's the exact same thing that a private club should
be allowed to refuse to recognize an interracial marriage because the owner
believes it's morally repugnant.

In fact, the amendment should just read that no one should be forced to
behave in a way that they find against their beliefs. Why just force it on
one group? That's discrimination, plain and simple. And that's exactly
what this amendment is. Legal discrimination and removing any chance to get
grievances heard in a court of law. Basically it ties the hands of gay
couples and removes their chances to get the status that they seek or to
have the matter decided in the place that's meant to hear it. Our judicial
system.

And, by the way, no law or amendment will ever be able to stop your telling
your children your point of view. My parents taught me a set of their
beliefs. Many I grew up believing. Some I learned weren't quite as they
had said it was. That's part of growing up. Yes, the schools may say
differently, but that's why they have religious schools and private schools
and home schooling. That point won't hold water. Sorry.

As you've no doubt noticed (as I have), neither of us is going to change the
mind of the other. We're merely going to go around in a circle ad nauseum.

All I ask is what I mentioned above. Instead of supporting this amendment
try to find a common ground and work for something that people can live with
instead of forcing people to feel inferior just because they're not just
like everyone else. After all, they didn't choose to be gay. But people
are choosing to force their bigotry on them. And that's wrong. Especially
in Wisconsin.

And that, ladies and gents, was the last thing we said to one another.

[CorpGovActivist]

8. Will: Tell Him Your Relationship Isn't a Three-Fifths Compromise

1. My partner and I have been together for 12 years (congrats on 19).

2. We're registered Republicans (but vote Dem more often than not).

3. Ask him if he would have backed the three-fifths compromise on counting slaves in the census:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise

4. At one time in our nation's history, supporting this Constitutional principle would have been considered "conservative," but now it would be considered "reactionary," and "the wrong side of history."

5. Tell him that you don't consider your relationship to be three-fifths of one, and that your partner and you should be entitled to all the protections of marriage that - say - a middle-aged couple who have no intent of having children should enjoy.

6. Finally, confront him with all of the "special rights" that he's fighting to exclude your partner and you from, while his side of the "marriage apartheid" line enjoy these: http://www.thetaskforce.org/theissues/issue.cfm?issueID=14 (see the list of 1,138 ways that the GAO says that the Federal Government alone gives special rights to married couples; this doesn't even include the special rights granted by the respective states)

7. If you're going to argue with a "reactionary" posing as a "conservative," you gotta learn to think like one! The Constitution once defined slaves as three-fifths of a person: at the time, supporters even used the Bible, which mentions slavery as commonplace and normal, as support for the argument that slavery was ordained, natural, and lawful. Tell him that he's following right in the footsteps of those arguments, and invite him to explain to you how your partner and you should be taxed like anyone else, without sharing the same rights. Invite him to support the modern "Three-Fifths Compromise" that is "straights-only" marriage, and ask him if he'd patronize an establishment that had "straights only" and "gays only" counters, water fountains, etc. Gotta hit a "reactionary" posing as a "conservative" where it hurts: with examples of other poor, misguided reactionaries who thought they were being conservative, but ended up just being on the wrong side of history.

8. Finally, if that's not enough, tell him that if his ilk doesn't figure this out, the demographic voting wave that is Gen Y is going to put them out of power for a good long time: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=generation+y+voters

; )

Hope that helps!

- Dave