Reading between the lines of upcoming state marriage amendments

Back in June, I posted about Wisconsin's chances at turning away the upcoming marriage amendment vote at the ballot box. Joshua Freker of Fair Wisconsin feels that it could be the first state to turn back a constitutional ban on civil unions and marriage.

Virginia, as I mentioned in an earlier post this week, faces a tough battle on this front as well, with the polls showing 56% support passage in one poll, and 45% in favor and 40% against in another.

Josh Goodman at Governing.com sent me this email about the issue.

...I think the marriage referendums this fall in Wisconsin and Virginia could get very interesting. One poll had the Wisconsin ban on gay marriage only ahead 49%-48%, while another had it up 53%-44%. Virginia's was ahead 56%-38%.

To put this in context, 15 of the 16 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 (I have a post on Governing Magazine's blog that has the entire list and makes this same argument). If the polls are right in Virginia and Wisconsin, the difference will be five percentage points or less.

This might not signal a shift of sentiment on marriage per se, since the language in both states would also ban civil unions. But it never mattered much in previous votes whether or not the measures included civil unions, so that in itself would be an interesting development.

Here is Josh's breakdown of the percentage of votes for Dear Leader and the amendments, from his post, "A Gay Marriage Reversal of Fortune?":



His thesis is that the closing of the gap between pro and con in later votes could suggest a weakening of the impact that civil marriage equality (and gay righs issues generally) has as an issue for Republicans.

Of course, as a matter of state law it doesn't matter whether a gay marriage ban passes with 51% of the vote or 75% of the vote. Nor does it matter much to the individuals affected by the policy. But, if these polls turn out to be right, the long-term political and policy implications are significant.

Obviously gay marriage will lose some of its political punch if it becomes just another issue where Republicans and Democrats are united in opposition to one another (as I argued last week, it also may be eclipsed by gay parenting issues). Furthermore, competitive votes would signal greater support for the broad array of gay rights causes, from non-discrimination laws to adoption to hate crimes. So, you can bet legislators around the country will be watching.

All that said, Wisconsin remains the best hope for a defeat of a state amendment. The pot is being stirred...

Yesterday, unions representing a big chunk of the state's workers strongly denounced the ban on marriage equality and civil unions, citing that the amendment could affect the union's ability to bargain for benefits for domestic partners (of gay or straight employees).

Brian Weeks, director of AFSCME's political arm, called the amendment "an attack on labor unions' collective bargaining rights." He said the group's locals representing public employees for the city of Madison and Dane County stand to lose benefits if the amendment passes.

"Backers of this ban are trying to break deals and take away rights and protections that working people have earned through good-faith negotiations," Weeks said.

...Cathy Rought, spokeswoman for 17,000-member AFT-Wisconsin, said the amendment threatens benefits enjoyed by some of technical college faculty and staff it represents. Other employees would not be able to bargain for similar benefits in the future, she said.

"We will be collaborating to go door to door and talk to people about the importance of defeating the amendment," she said. "Most people, once they understand this is not an issue about being gay or being straight and that it's an access to health care question, they oppose this."

Fair Wisconsin has been receiving support from other unions as well, such as the the state's largest teachers' union, Wisconsin Education Association Council ($25,000), AFT-Wisconsin ($5,000), and Communication Workers of America (Milwaukee, $1,000).

This influx of cash and outreach (AFT members plan to go door-to-door to educate other union members on why the amendment must be defeated) has the fundies scurrying to counter it. It's nice to see them off balance.

***

And one Wisconsin couple of note stepped forward in opposition to the amendment.

Couple of 49 years parted only by death

Andy at Towleroad has a wonderful story of Wisconsin couple Richard Taylor and Ray Vahey, who were together for 49 years until the death of Taylor last Friday at 81.

Spurred by the proposed Wisconsin amendment to ban gay marriage, Taylor and Vahey decided to begin speaking publicly about their relationship last June. Vahey described the difficulties of having a relationship in the closeted 1950's as "an exaggerated version of don't ask, don't tell."



Last December, I posted about the couple after they made an appearance at a state hearing against the proposed Wisconsin amendment. At that time, Vahey said, "Richard and I met and fell in love in 1956. For 49 years, we have yearned for a marriage recognized in America. Yet until this year, we had never come out in a public way. We decided this cause is not only worth it to us but to millions of others..."

He added, "Euphemisms like 'partnership' or 'union' set us apart from society," Vahey said at the Legislative hearing last fall. "Substitute terms that categorize and separate us become our yellow Star of David badges. . . . Here at home, African-Americans learned long ago that 'separate but equal' is not equal."

***

After reading that, take a look at the unhinged rantings of one of the true believers, Kevin McCullough over at WingNutDaily. Expect more obsessing from our fundie friends, who think about homosexuality 24/7, fixated on sex acts. They simply cannot help themselves; they cannot let go of the homosexual boogeyman.

No gene, no cell, no DNA has ever been proven to cause one man to engage in all varieties of sexual acts with another man. Pure unbridled lust maybe, but not DNA. And for the record, pure unbridled lust almost always turns out bad, no matter what gender of person you're engaging with sexually. Restrained sexuality is certainly what scriptural texts call for, but it is also what science has proven to be the healthiest for the individuals involved.

The reason homosexual activists are losing on the battle to redefine marriage is simple – it's just plain wrong.

I know, it's not a popular position to take. Neither is telling the uncle who is always drunk how alcohol might kill him someday. But if you really loved you're uncle, wouldn't you at least try? And you certainly wouldn't let him get behind the wheel.

Calling for sexual restraint is not popular. Calling for sexual discipline in society that matches the scriptural model isn't, either. (One man, one woman, in marriage for a lifetime.) But ultimately, if you truly love those around you who are injuring themselves and others they love, it is your obligation to speak up.