just me responds...... wrote on Nov 7, 2006 2:11 PM:
" justin time too. i don't know who is telling you your marriage will be destroyed but that is not what i think. i do beleive that the cost of health care that will be passed on will skyrocket though. if you think about it, there are millions of people out there with no coverage that all of a sudden will be covered under their "significant others" policy if they are allowed to have civil unions. now where do you think that extra cost will be picked up? you and me that is where. as far as the gov't staying out of your wallet and bedroom, in your wallet is something called legal tender and sorry to tell you but the gov't has some say in it. the bedroom thing, that's funny "
To: Just me wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:04 AM:
" But what about the argument that my marriage will be in trouble if same sex couples are allowed to marry? Less than a quarter of my conservative friends believe that their marriage will be damaged by same sex marriages. And for those of you who believe that all republicans or religious are for the amendment, speak for yourself. I want the government to stay out of my wallet AND my bedroom. "
To: Nice try wrote on Nov 6, 2006 7:16 PM:
" Protect Wisconsin from what? What are you so afraid of? Do you think armed bands of gay men are going to re-decorate your house. Perhaps you're afraid of getting a makeover? The thing that TRULY needs protecting is equal access to justice. Vote NO! "
Nice Try! wrote on Nov 6, 2006 4:58 PM:
" Nice try all of you claiming to be Republicans and/or Catholics and "Claiming" to be voting NO. Any Republican, and certainly anyone with any religous affiliation, will be voting YES. Don't let them steal this one folks. Vote YES! Protect Wisconsin. "
To: "why try to confuse..." wrote on Nov 6, 2006 3:52 PM:
" There are no rights being taken away -- YET. The second sentence of the proposal leaves a lot of room for right-wing activists to file suit over all sorts of issues in order to take away rights from unmarried straight and gay couples at a later date. One need only look as far as Michigan to see exactly what happened when their amendment was passed and the barbarous court rulings that followed. "
Regarding "activist" judges wrote on Nov 6, 2006 3:50 PM:
" The New Jersey decision was unanimous, with the only discrepancy being the remedy required by that state's supreme court. Three of the judges on that court were appointed by a GOP governor. "Activism?" Hardly. They are charged with upholding their state's constitution (which IS different from Wisconsin's). They applied the law, as it exists and came to the only possible conclusion. That their ruling struck a blow for equal access to justice for all only sweetens the deal for same-sex couples. "
To Johnathan wrote on Nov 6, 2006 3:46 PM:
" Not a partisan issue? Oh, really? Just WHO are your kidding (other than yourself)? "
re:re:just me wrote on Nov 6, 2006 5:50 AM:
" i was talking about "single" heteros living together sorry i have to explain that to you. you are married therefore already get the benefits of being married. "
Re: just me wrote on Nov 5, 2006 6:24 PM:
" I am a married, hetero woman... my husband and I are BOTH strongly against this amendment. And we're both republicans. This is the first year we'll be voting democratic, and we're voting NO on the marriage amendment. "
To:1:43pm wrote on Nov 5, 2006 4:08 PM:
" Sorry, but you are still wrong. I was raised Catholic, and my parents and other family mambers still are. I, however, am not. So, I am not at all ignorant of the Catholic Faith. I am very familiar with it. I am not making a value judgment of whether it is good or bad that you are no longer a catholic. It is what it is. But, it seems ludicrous that you would claim to be a catholic if you don't believe in or follow the churches teachings. That is a contradiction. The teachings and beliefs are what makes you Catholic. Otherwise, "Catholic" has no meaning whatsoever. The word may as well not even exist. "
to 12:57 a.m. wrote on Nov 5, 2006 1:43 PM:
" You are incorrect. All Catholics are always Catholic. You can't leave the cult because you don't follow all the teachings. Joan Of Arc was burned for not following them, and now she's a saint. You are ignorant of the faith. "
Ironic wrote on Nov 5, 2006 10:38 AM:
" I honestly believe that our fundamentalist evangelicals so filled to the brim with hatred, would actually hate Jesus were he to visit us today. Jesus who stood up for the poor, oppressed, "different and singled out" people would not be welcome in their "church".
I don't recall him saying "kick em' when they're down". Or "hate every person who is not exactly like yourself in every way". AMAZING. "
To:8:17pm wrote on Nov 5, 2006 12:57 AM:
" You are not a Catholic. If you do not believe or follow the churches teachings-by definition that means you are not a Catholic. "
equal rights wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:42 PM:
" If you are gay - oh I'm sorry want to marry someone of the same sex, move to one of the many states who are legalizing this type of union. Don't go away mad... "
Jonathan wrote on Nov 4, 2006 8:50 PM:
" Well said Steve. Let's compare notes after this election is over, and let's not bash Republicans. This is not a partisan issue. See www.votenova.org and www.equalityloudoun.org "
Who are the activists? wrote on Nov 4, 2006 8:17 PM:
" I'm sick of the "activist judge" comments coming from the Right. Has one ever thought that they are upholding the laws of this country by not discriminating against a particular group of citizens. The ones being "activists" are the right-wingers and religious zealots that conveniently pick out bible verses to support their cause. There are also plenty of passages in the bible that we as a civilized society no longer practice. I'm a catholic and I encourage other catholics who believe in fairness to vote "no" on this amendment...unless you follow all the church's teachings including those on birth control and divorce. Because if your catholic you're not suppose to believe in those either. VOTE NO! "
Good to Hear from You, Steve wrote on Nov 4, 2006 7:25 PM:
" Thankfully a member of the GOP has spoken out. There is hope yet for the party. The people I know are voting NO the the proposed ban/amendment. Join them, it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately there are still plenty listening to the Ted Haggards and Pat Robertsons and Rush Limbaughs. Let's make sure the educated and enlightened out-number them. Get Out the Vote!
(Hi Steve from Ardell's daughter!) "
Thank You Steve wrote on Nov 4, 2006 7:22 PM:
" We need more brave congressmen like yourself. Even though I'm a Democrat, I've always been proud to say that you were our Congressman. Best wishes with your life. Thank you. "
Why try to confuse the issue??? wrote on Nov 4, 2006 5:41 PM:
" The issue with the "Marriage Amendment" is to take away the ability of the activist judges to interpret the law. A YES vote will make it read "one-man and one-woman". There are no "rights" being lost or taken away. Just a clarification of the founding fathers meant marriage to be. Quite plain and simple to me.
"
just me ...... wrote on Nov 4, 2006 4:51 PM:
" but i think it is the gay people that are making this an anti gay thing, you don't see heteros living together coming out telling us to vote no. and if they are , how long do you have to be "together" in order to get benefits? "
To "Pardon my ignorance" wrote on Nov 4, 2006 4:09 PM:
" Good point--the law would also forbid civil unions or domestic partnerships between opposite sex couples. This is a straight's rights issue as well as a gay rights issue (call it human rights). "
impressed by Gundersen wrote on Nov 4, 2006 12:29 PM:
" It's time for all Republicans who believe individual rights are the backbone of our constitution to speak against this amendment. "
PLovejoy wrote on Nov 4, 2006 11:45 AM:
" I agree with Steve Gunderson! "
Pardon my ignorance.... wrote on Nov 4, 2006 10:35 AM:
" but could someone post the actual text of the amendment? I did not think the amendment said anything about gays or sexual preference. I thought it was simply a same sex marriage ban. The domestic partnerships, etc would apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals. I don't see where gays are singled out at all. "
haggard: wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:54 AM:
" ok,so now"another minister" is accused of having sex with a guy,and most of all denying it,so which of the commandments has he broken?i just don't get it...here, a man of the cloth that speaks down on all gay people,get's caught or a gay prostitute says,yeah we've been doing the dirty deed for about three years plus!!!doing meth at the same time!!!!!the leading gay guys and pedophiles are leading their congregations to believe that they are saints,but behind closed doors THEY ARE THE WORST!!WHAT GOD TELLS THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DO???? "
Steve Gunderson wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:37 AM:
" is a true republican - faithful to the legacy of Lincoln. No true republican would ever support an amendment to the constitution that limits individual rights. I call on all republicans to vote no. "
Aw, poor Steve! wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:36 AM:
" This is what comes of being a republican and supporting their hateful agenda. You were used and then kicked to the curb. Now your former "friends" in the party will do whatever they can to take away your rights. Don't come crying to the rest of us who have fought for years to ensure equal protection under law for everyone. "
blah, blah blah wrote on Nov 4, 2006 9:29 AM:
" i'm sure going to be glad when these elections are over. it's just amazing how people you have never heard from in years come out of the woodwork. or how 'victims' suddenly appear ie Fox. is it possible to actually run on issues anymore? or is smear. slander and deception what politics is all about? "
Daniel wrote on Nov 4, 2006 8:22 AM:
" If the state was really interested in preserving marriage, it would be passing a law that will make it harder to get divorced as well as helping couples in problems in their marriages. it is so very easy to get divorced in Wisconsin; because of this being a "no fault divorce" state, all you have to do is obtain a lawyer and go through course even if the other person doesn't want the divorce. Instead, the state is bashing people who are our friends, neighbors and relatives. "
Vote NO...NO...NO.. wrote on Nov 4, 2006 7:58 AM:
" Enough said! "
Chuck wrote on Nov 4, 2006 7:21 AM:
" Steve Gunderson is correct; this proposal is a mean spirited, anti gay agenda to further polarize the electorate. It seems the Republicans have to again distract the voters because they cannot handle the real issues facing our nation and our State. It's easier to point the finger at groups of people inferring that they are the real problem, that's always gotten the religious right out to vote in the past, and is the intent again now, it appears. "
The Amendment Is UN-AMERICAN wrote on Nov 4, 2006 6:30 AM:
" Any constitution, law, or bill that openly creates a sub-class of citizen is absolutely un-American. It's bad enough that our state constitution appoints Christianity as the state religion, but it's even worse that it defines thousands of its citizens as un-deserving of all rights and protections under the law. VOTE NO on the referendum, and VOTE NO on our state legislature's shameful attempt to force bigoted superstitions upon us. "
Well, duh. wrote on Nov 4, 2006 6:00 AM:
" Of course it is anti-gay. It is hateful and spiteful and childish. But is that a BAD thing? No, it is not. Why? Because it gets out the hot button idiot voters who will tow the fundamentalist party line. Of course these right wingers keep showing up in police lineups for meth, for child molesting, and for soliciting prostitution. But at least their marriages are blessed by God and the institution of marriage is safe from hoomosexuals. "
That is what it is. wrote on Nov 4, 2006 5:37 AM:
" They do clearly want to make this anti-gay, which they have done. The definition of discrimination is "treating people differently through prejudice: unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnic group, age group, religion, or gender". Vote No. "
Thomas wrote on Nov 4, 2006 2:54 AM:
" Is it really necessary to make part of our community feel inferior to others (which of course they are not)? What good does it do to create a feeling of distrust, to create some who are "better" than others? If religious, we are all equal and deserve the respect of the community. If not religious, we are still equal. Joe tried to ostracize those who were different, and the nation spoke loudly against such demagoguery. Wisconsinites need backbone. Well said Gunderson. "
Beginning on November 8th... wrote on Nov 4, 2006 2:17 AM:
" the divorce rate in Wisconsin should plummet from around 50% to 0%. Why? Because the sole factor that has been the driving force among divorces of man-woman marriages will now be constitutionally forbidden. So will civil unions and domestic partnerships. It's funny that unsaved, secular "scholars" point to other factors as the cause for divorce such as domestic violence, job loss, infidelity, money problems and the like. But, we true Christians know the Truth. It's been the insidious homosexuals with their vile Agenda all along! Granted, in the 20 states that have passed similar amendments, the divorce rate has not fallen...at all. But this time it will be different folks. Trust us! And if any unsaved politician (aka, Democrat) asks us to address any of those pseudo-factors like "domestic violence" in the Wisconsin Constitution, just laugh in his face and tell him marriage is already protected. "
Sophie wrote on Nov 4, 2006 1:18 AM:
" I agree with Steve 100%. This is an anti-gay issue. Can't we deal with subjects that are a bit more important than this? If the government has nothing better to do with its time; we need a new government. "
If that's what wrote on Nov 4, 2006 12:12 AM:
" it is,so be it!Vote yes!!!! "
Advertisement
