The third question posed by Jenna was answered by Fair Wisconsin.
The second sentence outlaws civil unions and seriously jeopardizes existing legal protections for thousands of Wisconsin families.
The second sentence, in other words, is meant to prevent our future elected representatives from reaching a decision that Appling, Gundrum, and Fitzgerald don’t like. It's meant to prevent future generations--who already support civil unions in large majorities--from passing such legislation.
Ms. Ankerson begins personalizing the debate--that's called "ad hominem" and it's typical.
Other conservatives believe we should support stable families, and that's precisely why they oppose making life more difficult for gay families.
Really? "Stable"? And your proof is.....where?
Labor unions too have looked seriously at the language. They’re pointing out that the second sentence could take bargaining rights away from working families. We’re talking about health insurance policies that have already been negotiated and adopted for public employees, including at the La Crosse School District, the City of Madison, and the City of Milwaukee, as well as future contracts.
"Could" is right. But as we all know, contracted agreements are not LIKELY to be broken, unless they are blatantly discriminatory--like providing benefits ONLY for "gay" couples.
Legal protections such as medical decision-making and financial powers of attorney will be vulnerable to legal challenges if the ban passes. The Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups has been especially vigilant in its opposition.
Uhhh--nope, Ingrid. The Legislature retains the power (even after the 2nd sentence) to allow power-of-attorney arrangements.
Owen's support of the Second Sentence rests on an understandable concern: the propensity of Legislators to weasel their way around common sense:
This is precisely why the second sentence of the marriage amendment exists. The objective of the amendment is to protect the institution of marriage from being arbitrarily redefined by a court.
...Without it, the first sentence will only protect the word “marriage” – not the institution.
The second sentence leaves the amendment open to the rhetoric that it “bans civil unions” which turns some folks against it. Of course, nobody actually bothers to define “civil unions.” It means different things to different people.
Owen CLEARLY understands that controlling the language will control the outcome of the debate. It's one thing to give a friend Power of Attorney privileges. It's another thing entirely to vest "civil unions" with ALL the privileges of marriage.
The Wiggle Word of the Day is "civil union."
And the objections of Ingrid are based on Wiggle Words. There's no "there" there, as we have pointed out before.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My only objection to the second sentence is that it could someday be used to overturn the ammendment, however for moral purposes I'm glad it's there. I have heard sometimes that if we don't have civil union benifits in this state we will loose a lot of gay professors from the UW systemm. Thus maybe the ammendment as is will drive enough of the ajatators out before they can cause further damage. As Stephen Colbert has said (in good humor), allow gay marriage in one state to protect the others.
I don't follow your logic.
How can an amendment be overturned by its own text?
Post a Comment