I've been feeling...under the weather...so I'm keeping this short.
I'm voting yes.
Why?
Because a lawsuit is already on its way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to force - by judicial fiat - the same re-definition of marriage that was foisted on the people of MA and, most recently, NJ.
In spite of what people want. I read somewhere that 71% of people in NJ opposed gay marriage, but that opposition went unheard - in a DEMOCRATIC society - because a few black-robed mullahs decided they were better fit to interpret the will of the people.
I believe such issues - gay marriage, abortion - should be decided by the people, via election, and on a state-by-state basis. I'm wary whenever groups work to block a vote on any amendment, because it appears then that the group either knows it can't win, or doesn't care what a majority of people think. And I don't doubt that if support for the aforementioned topics favored the "pro" side, they wouldn't have a problem allowing it to go to a vote. Which is why they go to judges - activist judges - who "interpret" the state's constitution or previous court rulings in the favor of the group.
I also believe that, should gay marriage pass, it will not stop there. As we saw in MA, same-sex couples sued Catholic Charities for the right to adopt. In spite of Catholic Charities objections, which - in a sane world, would be protected under the First Amendment. So Catholic Charities shut down its adoption program rather than sell its faith short.
It would not surprise me at all to see, in the next 5-10 years, states like MA and NJ go the way of Canada. Where speaking objectionably about gay marriage or homosexual behavior is punishable by a hate crime. Even for religious persons. So much for the fair and equal treatment clause, huh? Because, as Mark Shea often says: You. Must. Enthusiastically. Approve. Anything less will be met with full force and consequence.
Take, for example, the case of Mary Stachowicz. A mother of four, and devoted Catholic, Stachowicz was brutally murdered by 23-year-old Nicholas Gutierrez. Gutierrez's defense team is using the "she had it coming" defense, arguing that Stachowicz's objections to Gutierrez's gay lifestyle caused him to snap and stab her (so many times and with such force the blade of the hunting knife bent), strangle her, rape and beat her before stuffing her body under the floorboards in his apartment.
This case is not being classified as a "hate crime", and is largely being ignored in the media.
One pro-homosexual group, Soulforce, which works in churches to oppose traditional Christian views of the sexual lifestyle, did make a statement to a newspaper, even though it did not release a press statement.
"We condemn this murder, like we do all murders," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, but "a hate crime needs to have an intent to intimidate a whole class of people."
So apparently, "hate crimes" can happen to women, gays, and racial minorities. But not Catholics. Even though this case clearly shows that if you hold to and profess Church teaching on homosexuality (that is, the behavior is morally objectionable, but the person is deserving of love), you will be killed and blamed for your murder. Yeah. No intimidation there, whatsoever.
And if you don't believe some in the same-sex supporters think the Church and her members should be eradicated, read this gem from blogger James Wagner:
'The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.'
Just think of the outrage everytime a woman is told "she had it coming" when she's the victim of sexual assault (I don't think that's the case), or that Matthew Shepherd "had it coming" (he didn't, either).
It's this kind of secular progressive thinking that aims to eradicate traditional Christianity - the rockbed of America - from this nation and society.
In public schools, children as young as 5 are read stories about same-sex couples, taught about "alternative" lifestyles, and given information on sexual behavior. Often, this is done without the knowledge or consent of parents, and when parents do object, the courts tell them they have no right over what their child learns in school. Even though their tax dollars support the school, and even though they should - in a sane world - have a right to say what their children can and can't be exposed to at the tender age of 5.
And I wouldn't be surprised if, one day, traditional churches are forced to accept same-sex couples for marriage or face losing their tax-exempt status. The left is always up in support of "seperation of church and state", except when the state dictates to the church the left's "religion" of secular progressive behavior.
The notion that rights will be stripped from all non-married couples (same-sex and otherwise) is a lie being advanced by groups like FAIR Wisconsin. They will still have hospital visitation, and - with the approrpriate legal documents - power of attorney, wills, etc. will still allow the partner(s) to remain in charge of their affairs.
It's a good idea for any couple to have such paperwork - black, white, straight, gay - because it adds a layer of protection from outside interference (like family or friends). It ensures that you will give control to whom you want, that your wishes are respected, instead of opening the doors for court battles, lawsuits, and arguments.
And, regarding domestic abuse laws, those are separate from marriage. No man is going to go unprosecuted if he's an abuser and the woman wants to press charges. Period. The laws against assault and murder are not tied solely to marriage.
So I'm voting yes. To protect traditional marriage in the way it's been practiced for centuries, and to protect the religious freedom and free speech of every person in Wisconsin.
|