Trouble Brewing In Wisconsin

[Lessa]

Hi all!

As an active member of my GSA(Gay Straight Allience) I feel I should bring this up to you guys. Last tuesday the Wisconsin State Assembly voted to put a constitional amendment on the ballot in Novemember. The amendment says "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state." The first line is clear, the second line is not. Many people here don't even realize that this will not just affect gay couples by straight couple who are not married as well. I would like to ask for your guys help by encouraging your family members (if you have any that live here) to vote NO on this amendment. We must not let this happened in another state!

Thanks!

-Lessa 


The first time the bill came up the governor here vetoed it and so it went back and the assembley and senate weren't able to get enough votes to counter the veto. So now they are trying to get it put on this way.

[allyson]

I heard about that and it is kind of frightening.  My parents are lesbians and are definetly going to vote No.  Wow.  In Wisconsin...  I never would have guessed.

[Alexandra]

I would have guessed WI . . . this has happened in "progressive" states so there is no reason why it can't happen in the more "rural" areas of the midwest. 

We're going backwords. 

[Lessa]

I would have guessed WI . . . this has happened in "progressive" states so there is no reason why it can't happen in the more "rural" areas of the midwest. 

We're going backwords. 

Yes, sadly it has happened in other "progressive" states, but its NOT going to happen here! Where going to beat this! We have a really good chance I promise. Again I encourage all of you to tell all of your family members if they live in Wisconsin to vote NO.

Thanks for your support
-Lessa

[HelenW]

"The first line is clear, the second line is not."

The first line denies traditional marriage to gay people.  The second one denies the possibility of civil unions.

I wonder how much of this anti-gay marriage sentiment is driven by the insurance companies who will be required to pay out more money in benefits if the "marriage limitation" is removed.  I suspect it's a "culture war" strategy with a large basis of greed.

Kinda like the rest of the neoconservative agenda!

helen

[Lessa]

"The first line is clear, the second line is not."

The second one denies the possibility of civil unions.

helen

Not only that, but it also would deny rights for Demestic partnership as well. Lets say that two people are living together, and are not married they are just dating eachother and one of them has his or her partner on there dental insurance from their job, if this amendment passes that means that the partner on the dental insurance will NO LONGER get that insurance because they aren't married!  

-Lessa

[Leigh]

A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

There is a difference between a legal status and a contractual status.

In a contractual agreement--between a company and their insurance carrier of an example-- they may agree to have domestic partner benefits.  A large company may be self insured and offer domestic partner benefits which are legal because that means everyone in that type of relationship-hets, Lesbian or Gay.

A legal status will mean inheritance, visitation in a hospital, SS, death benefits, ownership of property if both are not on the paperwork, and way to many more to list.

According the the HRC www.hrc.org/ there are over 1000 benefits that are withheld from Lesbian and Gay couples because we are denied the right to a legal recognition of marriage.

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=31256&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm