Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Wisconsin bucking trend on gay marriage

Josh Goodman at Governing magazine has "come to the conclusion that Wisconsin's vote on gay marriage is going to be one of the biggest showdowns on the issue in recent memory." He says:
Fifteen of the sixteen gay marriage bans that have passed in the last 24 months did so with a higher percentage of the vote than Bush received in the state in 2004 and the average difference was a massive 13.5 percentage points.

Based on the polls in your state, this gap might completely vanish. To a lesser degree the same scenario is also playing out in Virginia.
Check out his Governing post on the subject.

He notes that civil unions are also part of the issue here, but says that has not made much difference in other states, so Wisconsin would be going against the flow -- I suspect because there is an effective campaign telling people what the amendment really means.

12 Comments:

At 4:50 PM, Blogger SteveS said...

It is really interesting how the potential loss of benefits for thos presently committing fraud against the state is cited by those opposed to this health bill.

What further group of parasitic criminals will be the next we attempt to protect?

 
At 5:25 PM, Blogger krshorewood said...

How about Halliburton?

 
At 6:23 PM, Blogger SteveS said...

What about Halliburton?

Had no idea they were gay!

Actually it would be interesting to learn how their HR people handle non-standard groupings of people claiming family status to gain benefits.

Any comments krshorewood on the actual thread topic?

 
At 6:50 PM, Blogger Spotlight said...

Back to the subject at hand: the wording came straight from the mind of John Gard, who presumed that the referendum would bring out voters in his congressional race.

The district is Catholic enough that the wording there may help Gard win, but statewide, the referendum could go down.

If it backfired completely and cost the intolerant Gard the election, well, that would be sweet justice, no?

 
At 7:11 PM, Blogger Todd said...

I think most Catholics will vote no on this ban. If you look at polling, more Catholics than Protestants support civil unions, and the ban clearly prohibits those.

 
At 7:14 PM, Blogger Todd said...

Steve, I don't understand your point. Who is committing fraud? And what is the nature of their crime?

 
At 7:21 PM, Blogger SteveS said...

sorry if I was unclear Todd. Several of the groups opposing the ammendment have cited instances where 'households' currently using alternative structures to marriage to qualify for state & federal benefits might be at risk in loosing access to these benefits.

My contention is if they knowingly are falsifying their actual status to take from the public purse, that they are commiting fraud & theft.

As an aside it is interesting that in Mass. gay couples are being told that they MUST MARRY to retain access to the priviledges they formerly were afforded. Interesting turn of the tale.

 
At 7:49 PM, Blogger Xoff said...

Steves, you hold the record on this blog: 21 posts between noon and 7 p.m.

Get a life, buddy.

 
At 8:31 PM, Blogger SteveS said...



Gee how inspiring - lets see so far I've has the asses who hang here call me a fool, fret about punctuation, and now the grand buffoon suggests that I should get a life.

Typical.

You want to blog politics, but not too much.

You want controversy, but only so long as it agrees with you.

Typical.

Rather than argue the issue you pick debasing the author.

Typical.


I will see you around. Your topics do interest, and it is great you have a place to voice them. I am sure we will agree on something soon.

 
At 9:17 PM, Blogger krshorewood said...

Steves (You're not Rick Steves are you?) let's replay...

"What further group of parasitic criminals will be the next we attempt to protect?"

Again, Halliburton. Halliburton, as in crooks. As in, oh I give up.

 
At 9:49 PM, Blogger SteveS said...

My real first name is Steve. Sorry I don't know your aquaintance. He can proably spell & type better than I anyway.

Halliburton has naught to do with the Gay Marriage issue.

I have only seen their media-chastisment. The individuals I know who work for various parts of Halliburton seem pretty stand up.

They do have you fixated though....

 
At 2:03 PM, Blogger Jenn said...

"'households' currently using alternative structures to marriage to qualify for state & federal benefits might be at risk in loosing access to these benefits.

That is true. Households registered as domestic partners could lose their domestic partnership benefits if this amendment passes. (Incidentally, there are no federal benefits for domestic partners.)

"My contention is if they knowingly are falsifying their actual status to take from the public purse, that they are commiting fraud & theft.

Nobody is falsifying their status. To be a registered domestic partnership you must prove you are exactly that. They would not lose their benefits for "commiting fraud and theft", they would lose their benefits for being who they are.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home