I just got this email and thought it was pretty sad. I really hope Wisconsin citizens are smarter than to do something like this:
Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court declared that its constitutional amendment banning gay marriage also prohibits Michigan's public employers from offering domestic partner health insurance.
For several reasons, the Michigan Supreme Court's decision has absolutely no bearing on the domestic partner benefits that numerous Wisconsin public employees fought hard for and won. This is a terrible decision for the people of Michigan, and contrary to what they were promised during their amendment battle.
Here is the background on the Michigan case. In 2004, Michigan voters amended their state constitution to provide that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." During their referendum campaign, proponents of the Michigan amendment made numerous public assurances that the amendment would not impact domestic partner protections and benefits. The Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, said that those assurances were irrelevant to what they said was the "clear" wording of the amendment. Interestingly, it took the Court 14 pages, breaking the single sentence down into five separate parts, to reach the conclusion that the wording was clear.
Read the entire 54-page opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court.
Wisconsin is not Michigan. There are significant differences in the wording of our "marriage" amendment and in what our Supreme Court must consider in interpreting it. Our amendment limits the status of marriage to heterosexual couples, and prohibits the state from extending all or substantially all of the legal rights and protections of marriage to unmarried couples. The Michigan amendment focuses only on who may marry or have a "similar" union that is recognized by the state, and does not address the benefits that flow from marriage or similar union at all. This difference in focus allowed the Michigan courts to look only at whether the nature of the relationship between domestic partners "looked like" a marital relationship, rather than also looking at whether the benefits provided by the government were "identical to or substantially similar" to those provided through marriage, as would be the test under the Wisconsin amendment.
In addition, unlike the Michigan courts, Wisconsin courts are required to consider the numerous public statements made by legislators and proponents that the amendment would not prohibit domestic partner benefits.
Even though we know Wisconsin is not Michigan, this horrendous judicial decision highlights our need to continue the fight for full equality for LGBT Wisconsinites and their families. We will be working with our legislative allies on securing domestic partner protections and benefits, and we will be calling on the legislative proponents of the Wisconsin marriage amendment to reaffirm the assurances they made during the campaign. We are prepared, with your help, to identify and target any who refuse to stand by their earlier words.
Please contribute here to help us achieve full equality.
Sincerely,
Glenn Carlson
Executive Director
Fair Wisconsin
20 comments:
The law is the law. Thank God there are still some judges who properly interpret the law without inserting their own political will.
"The law is the law"? Yes, what a great attitude. The law is written by people, and people are not infallible, Chris. Not all laws are good laws, just like not all people are good people.
I guess from a fluffy-brained, Utopian fantasy perspective your statement is correct. Here in the real world laws matter whether you like them or not. There are consequences for breaking laws even if you think it's wrong. In other words, what you _think_ or _feel_ about this issue is irrelevant. The law is the law and you must follow it or suffer the consequences.
With regard to the constitutional amendment to only allow marriage between one man and one woman here in Wisconsin... A lot of people went through a lot of time and effort to properly follow the procedures that allows THE PEOPLE of our state to pass that law. I don't see the other side bothering to put in that kind of effort to come up with their own constitutional amendments. All I see from the other side is a bunch of whining and judge shopping in an effort to thwart the will of the people. They believe in judicial tyranny over the will of the people and that saddens me more than you will ever know.
In response to your first paragraph, first of all I don't appreciate your condescending tone. And you wonder why I have a hard time talking to you and not getting upset...Second, I never said I think people should break the law. Of course they shouldn't.
It is unfortunate that "the other side" doesn't have as much power as the religious right in this situation. Because yes, it is the religious right that makes ridiculous laws like this. You once asked me why I'm so afraid of freedom. Well Chris, why are you so afraid of letting other people have their freedom?? Every man and woman has the right to love whomever they please, and should therefore have the right to express that love through marriage. Not allowing that seems extremely anti-family and anti-freedom to me.
Homosexuals are free to love and live with whomever they please. There is nothing stopping them from living that lifestyle. They are not, however, free to impose their definition of marriage on the rest of us when the vast majority agree that marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman. The reason the religious right has power in this issue is because it is common sense and the vast majority of our citizens recognize that. If, God forbid, a majority of people decide to pass a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage then it will happen. As I said earlier, what saddens me most is that there is no effort from the other side to follow the proper procedures for passing laws. They simply continue to shop around for liberal judges who will twist and bend the law to suit their needs. That is tyranny when it stands in stark contrast with the will of the people.
How is the definition of marriage as a man and woman "common sense"? If you say because the Bible says so, well then why don't you also keep kosher and stone your disobedient children? Two men or two women getting married in no way harms or even affects anyone else's freedoms. I really don't think it would have any affect on anyone else's lives whatsoever. You can believe it's wrong all you want. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't believe we should be able to impose our morality upon others. I still think banning gay marriage is anti-family and anti-freedom. I'd be happy to hear why you think that's not the case.
"I don't believe we should be able to impose our morality upon others."
That's a very interesting statement. Do you think we should impose our moral standards for murder on people who think it's ok? What about our moral standards for stealing?
You see, we, as a civilized nation, create laws to place boundaries around human behavior. Without those boundaries our human nature would lead us into many destructive behaviors ultimately leading to anarchy and a total breakdown of our society. Our laws happen to be based on a moral code which can be traced back to the Bible. Those moral standards became the basis for our legal system long, long ago and only a very small percentage of our population disagree with them. I understand that you are frustrated. I suppose I would be too if I were in the minority opinion. As a matter of fact, I am in the minority opinion on things like outlawing abortion so I know just how frustrating it can be.
Everyone knows that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. You can't just re-define things because you want to. Hundreds of years of tradition cannot simply be flushed down the toilet on the whim of a few. That is why I was very happy that we were able to vote on a constitutional amendment. It gave every single voter the opportunity to decide for him or herself and, as it happens, the vast majority chose to maintain our traditions. Accept it and move on.
Huh, almost like I know what I'm talking about...
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Note how a few politically motivated judges are dictating to ALL the people of California? Even after the voters made it very clear what their will is. That, my friends, is judicial tyranny. Might as well coronate the judges and call them kings and queens because they are the ultimate rulers of our country. I can hear them in their court chambers now, "To hell with the people and their pathetic democratic institutions like voting. We'll make the rules around here!"
Allowing gays to marry is obviously not as black and white as murder or stealing. Although I suppose you could say everything has a gray areas somewhere. But anyway, although there may be a majority of people at present who would like to limit the freedoms of certain people, I have complete confidence that the tides will shift as the older generation dies out and the younger takes its place. Change never happens quickly or easily, and history repeatedly shows us that new ideas are oh-so-often spat upon and ridiculed, even thought of as "evil" and "wrong" when they first emerge. Nevertheless, over time people's ideas and minds grow and evolve and what once was taboo becomes commonplace. So although there may be a lot of struggle and controversy over this topic now, I really do believe gay marriage will one day seem obvious to everyone and the thought of outlawing will seem barbaric.
I'm sure you're right. As humanity continues its downward spiral and self-destructive behavior there will no doubt continue to be rationalizations to make the immoral moral and wrong into right. We're already living in a sort of "Bizarro World" where right is wrong, bad is good, and just about anything goes. Every time we make compromises with our own better judgment or ignore our conscience we steepen the descent to total societal destruction. It's not surprising at all especially for those of us who read the Bible. It will get much worse before it gets better.
I have a conscience too, believe it or not, and I also have very strong morals. I fail to see how homosexuality is "self-destructive" or "immoral". If you believe that because of the bible, then you also have to consider all the parts of the bible you definitely do not adhere to and ask yourself why it's ok to pick and choose.
I'm also curious about what you actually think about homosexuality. Do you think it's a choice people make and that they could easily decide not to be homosexual, or do you think it's something inherent that they cannot change? And if you believe the latter, then what do you think those people should do?
I would equate homosexuality to any other sin that humans fall into. We're all tempted into things that defy God's law and sometimes we are able to resist the temptation and other times we fail but that doesn't make it right no matter how you may wish to rationalize it. For our culture to encourage sin is a huge dis-service to the souls of those who may find themselves stuck in the downward spiral of behavior that leads to damnation. I'm not just talking about homosexuality either. Our culture pretty much celebrates infidelity too. I'll never forget when I heard someone in the '90s say that pretty much every husband has an affair. As I said, the culture's acceptance of homosexuality is just another example of the downward spiral of our our human behavior. It will get much worse before it gets better.
So you believe homosexuality is just another sin. Therefore you believe homosexuals are no different than you or I, they just choose to act upon their sexual impulses. So would you say you even believe in the state of being that is "homosexuality"? And finally, I really would like to know precisely why you feel homosexuality is a sin.
I recommend you read the Bible to find the answers you seek. Start with Leviticus and then read Romans. The answers are all there in black and white.
Nothing is "black and white" Although some may view the bible as the absolute word of god, it's pretty clear to me that it must be viewed through many layers of interpretation. I'm sure you're well-aware of the history of the bible and how it was written, edited, translated, edited some more, re-translated, etc. etc. I'm not saying it doesn't contain many valuable lessons and good advice on how to live a more fulfilling life, but not all that it contains falls in that category. Not even close.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
I suppose we can just disturb each other, then.
I'd rather have no faith than an overabundance of blind faith. However, I wouldn't say I have no faith. I actually have great faith in human beings. I have faith that people can (and do) make good and right decisions without needing to fear some sort of supernatural penalty or hoping for paradise after death. I'd rather make this world the best it can be instead of always thinking about the "next life". That doesn't mean I don't have a very strong moral foundation. In fact, I think it makes my morals that much stronger because I make good decisions not because I'm afraid of divine retribution, but because I know what's right in my heart-as all human beings inherently do (Unless they're sociopaths). The golden rule has nothing to do with the divine-it's just human nature.
You just paraphrased one of the reasons why I became Lutheran. As a Catholic I was always taught to fear God and to attempt to earn His love. Now I know that He loves me no matter how stupid I am and I choose to live a good life as THANKS for His love, not out of FEAR of His wrath. He poured out His full wrath onto His Son instead. So, you see, the philosophy is completely different. You write of God as though he is an overbearing ruler when He is really a Heavenly Father who loves you very much and wants to pass on all his riches into your life. And all you have to do is accept Him into your life. Unfortunately that means that you will have to give up your human arrogance first. I firmly believe that is the biggest barrier to faith in God. Too many people are so full of themselves and our petty human intelligence that they won't humble themselves to Our Lord. Makes a major-league big difference in your point of view when you start seeing it that way. Perhaps that is why you are so angry all the time.
Angry all the time? Well, I will admit that I often get angry when you're around and we get on subjects like this, but that has nothing to do with my beliefs about god, I assure you. It's more about me not being very good at dealing with people I sorely disagree with. But I'm working on it.
Anyway, the idea of god being all-forgiving and all-loving doesn't change my opinion at all. I still think morality is stronger when it has nothing to do with the supernatural and everything to do with treating your fellow man as you would like to be treated yourself. God need not make an appearance in that philosophy, whether loving or vengeful.
"...of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens." -- President George Washington
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure... are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." -- Charles Carroll (signer of the Declaration of Independence)
In other words, the morality you speak of is a by-product of the Christian philosophy. By embracing Christianity one can become morally complete.
"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus." -- Thomas Jefferson
"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author." -- Thomas Paine
These are only a few quotes from some of the most brilliant men in all of man's history. Their brilliance shines even brighter through their humility.
Post a Comment