YES? no? YES?..... IT IS YES!!! (Don't believe the vote "no" phone calls-UPDATE)
There is so much confusion about Wisconsin’s Marriage Amendment on next Tuesday’s ballot, I thought a little clarification was in order. YES, you vote “YES” on the amendment, if you wish to protect traditional 1 man + 1 woman = legally recognized marriage. (Monday) I just received another misleading vote no phone call that blatantly lied. It said, In Wisconsin, we know a marriage is between a man and a woman. You need to vote no to keep activist judges from interfering and to protect our children! That call is totally the opposite of the truth, they are purposely trying to mislead the public. That is wrong.
I heard the amendment will be on the back of the ballot. The amendment reads: "Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.” On that amendment, I WILL VOTE YES
I believe we need to protect the traditional definition of marriage by amending our constitution. Our State and U.S. constitutions do not define what constitutes a legal marriage because when those constitutions were written, NO ONE ever in their wildest dreams ever thought marriage would be anything but 1 man + 1 woman!
Some TV and radio commercials give the impression that a “no” vote changes nothing, which led people to believe that a no vote would stop gay marriage. NOT TRUE. There is already a case pending that will be brought before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Without language defining what constitutes marriage in our State Constitution, the judiciary can rule, as they just did in New Jersey and Massachusetts, that 2 men or 2 women could legally get married.
Our country has faced many issues as we continue to slide down the slippery slope toward becoming a Godless nation. I was in 5th grade when the Supreme Court removed prayer from school and a college senior when the court ruled on Roe vs. Wade. But this decision of redefining marriage could be the issue that sets off the avalanche. If the definition of marriage changes, what is to stop it from being: 1 man or woman + 2 men or women? Worse yet, 1 man and 1 minor male? (Some groups already advocate that arrangement.)
There is nothing new about homosexuality. The very term, Sodomy, comes from the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was destroyed for this practice. We know it was rampant in the Roman Empire; one Emperor (probably more) had an “Empress” that was not a woman. True, our democratic roots can be traced to early Rome, but let’s not embrace all their practices. Remeber, the Empire also viewed gladiators slaughtering people as entertainment, and Christians were used as human torches for parties.
I am not advocating gay bashing; I am just trying to protect traditional marriage. One recent letter to the editor in the Brookfield News favored gay marriage, viewing it as necessary to protect a homosexual’s adopted children in need of emergency medical treatment or to assure custody if the adopting “spouse” died. I contend that a well written legal medical authorization form and a will appointing the partner as guardian could take care of those infrequent emergencies.
If I cannot appeal to you on moral reasons, what about monetary? Imagine what it will cost to include same sex “spouses” in health insurance and pension benefits for teachers and other government employees? IF we open the door to gay marriage, live in couples will also demand to be included in spousal benefits. But the real cost is the loss of a moral standard that has held for thousands of years. It cannot be violated without consequences.
LINKS: Read Tom Gehl’s excellent post We Have Decided.
www.voteyesformarriagewi.org
www.brookfieldnow.com and www.betterbrookfield.com
Matt Thomas of www.newberlinnow.com includes Waukesha County issues from time to time
I heard the amendment will be on the back of the ballot. The amendment reads: "Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.” On that amendment, I WILL VOTE YES
I believe we need to protect the traditional definition of marriage by amending our constitution. Our State and U.S. constitutions do not define what constitutes a legal marriage because when those constitutions were written, NO ONE ever in their wildest dreams ever thought marriage would be anything but 1 man + 1 woman!
Some TV and radio commercials give the impression that a “no” vote changes nothing, which led people to believe that a no vote would stop gay marriage. NOT TRUE. There is already a case pending that will be brought before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Without language defining what constitutes marriage in our State Constitution, the judiciary can rule, as they just did in New Jersey and Massachusetts, that 2 men or 2 women could legally get married.
Our country has faced many issues as we continue to slide down the slippery slope toward becoming a Godless nation. I was in 5th grade when the Supreme Court removed prayer from school and a college senior when the court ruled on Roe vs. Wade. But this decision of redefining marriage could be the issue that sets off the avalanche. If the definition of marriage changes, what is to stop it from being: 1 man or woman + 2 men or women? Worse yet, 1 man and 1 minor male? (Some groups already advocate that arrangement.)
There is nothing new about homosexuality. The very term, Sodomy, comes from the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was destroyed for this practice. We know it was rampant in the Roman Empire; one Emperor (probably more) had an “Empress” that was not a woman. True, our democratic roots can be traced to early Rome, but let’s not embrace all their practices. Remeber, the Empire also viewed gladiators slaughtering people as entertainment, and Christians were used as human torches for parties.
I am not advocating gay bashing; I am just trying to protect traditional marriage. One recent letter to the editor in the Brookfield News favored gay marriage, viewing it as necessary to protect a homosexual’s adopted children in need of emergency medical treatment or to assure custody if the adopting “spouse” died. I contend that a well written legal medical authorization form and a will appointing the partner as guardian could take care of those infrequent emergencies.
If I cannot appeal to you on moral reasons, what about monetary? Imagine what it will cost to include same sex “spouses” in health insurance and pension benefits for teachers and other government employees? IF we open the door to gay marriage, live in couples will also demand to be included in spousal benefits. But the real cost is the loss of a moral standard that has held for thousands of years. It cannot be violated without consequences.
LINKS: Read Tom Gehl’s excellent post We Have Decided.
www.voteyesformarriagewi.org
www.brookfieldnow.com and www.betterbrookfield.com
Matt Thomas of www.newberlinnow.com includes Waukesha County issues from time to time
posted by KYLE PRAST | 9:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home