The Next Battlefield for Same-sex Marriage: Wisconsin?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by CalBoy, Apr 10, 2009.

  1. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #1
    http://www.examiner.com/x-6489-Madi...-marriage-ban-in-front-of-state-Supreme-Court

    On the surface it seems quite plain that the referendum did have two questions so it should be sent back to the Wisconsin State Legislature for another round of separating voting.

    However, the bigots smell trouble here, because they know that Wisconsin's Legislature is now controlled by the Democrats, whereas it had been controlled by Republicans (and quite strongly at that) in 2004 when the referendum was first voted on. Its future is uncertain if it has to be sent back to the Legislature in 2009, especially in the wake of Vermont and Iowa.

    I'm going to laugh at the cruel irony if Wisconsin has same-sex marriage before California.
     
  2. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #2
    Cool beans.

    It also looks likely that NY and NJ will probably bring up the issue soon, with NY especially surrounded by States (or Canada) that allow/recognize gay-marriage.

    The dominos have begun to fall.

    Btw, Wisconsin is a pretty level-headed state from what I remember of my time there.
     
  3. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #3
    Indeed they have.

    However, all of these victories won't be as valuable in the long term unless DOMA is overturned within the next few years. That's the truly gargantuan battle ahead.
    Oh I know it is, but is still burns that all of these states are progressing faster than the supposedly "liberal" California. :p
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Don't worry- California will get it right eventually. Probably sooner than you think.
     
  5. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #5
    This rapid succession thing will really help to bring the issue to the forefront rather than simply cruising along unnoticed. I hope the previous wins instill confidence in the legislatures/courts to do the right thing so we can tackle this at a national level sooner rather than later.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    I also can't help but note that this is an extraordinarily good time for this to be taking place politically. It's almost as if all the gay stars came into alignment for this.

    For starters, it's early in the political cycle. It will be over a year before the next major set of elections even begin to draw attention. That's time to allow the situation to become "the new normal", and defuse some of the intensity that can be drummed up in opposition as time saps enthusiasm. It's about the maximum amount of time you can get in the American political cycle.

    Next, we've got a country that has much bigger problems to deal with right now. Wedge issues are a luxury voters don't have right now. When you're worried that you'll lose your job, you're less apt to care about voting on the gay marriage issue.

    Third, the GOP are at their weakest now than they have been in at least 30 years. Voters have been rejecting conservative philosophy since the Bush apex in 2003/4. With a shrinking number of registered party faithful, and fewer committed activists available to put in the field -- not to mention less money available as a result of the poor economy -- that translates into less voters at the ballot box.

    Next, Americans have become less religious over the past decade or so. Significantly less, IIRC. In any case, there are fewer people out there now that get their views on homosexuality from religion than there were before.

    Also, there is a moderating trend occurring among mainstream Evangelicals, many of whom are not happy with the level of political involvement their leaders have taken their religion to. Many view social justice issues more broadly than the previous generation of leaders, and are as apt to want to attack environmental issues as gay marriage or abortion.

    And then there's the age factor. Homosexuality is accepted by younger people overwhelmingly. It is opposed overwhelmingly by older people. Time is on the gay side.
     
  7. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #7
    All excellent points, and I couldn't help but chuckle at "gay stars." In fact, "gay ___" seems to get me to laugh quite a bit, as I love Lewis Black's skit on gay banditos.

    It's quite astute of you to point of the moderating trend among evangelicals as well. It would seem most people on this board aren't aware of it. I think they are making changes that some people don't necessarily believe they would. However, it's a simple philosophy-- what's best for me and my religion isn't necessarily best for the country.
     
  8. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #8
    I'm betting on November 2010. If it's sooner than that, I'll say "you told me so" to you first of all. ;):)

    mactastic, that's a very good summary of where the gay rights movement stands at the moment. We all knew it would merely be a matter of time, but the current political climate seems to have sped up the process more so that we could have imagined (especially after the debacle of Prop 8).
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Your supreme court should grow a pair and support their original ruling.
     
  10. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #10
    They really should.

    Unfortunately they've been spineless ever since the death penalty and Rose Bird.

    I think Kennard in particular fears that fate.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    If they don't, they should all be ejected. I'm sorry, but they ruled the right to marriage was fundamental and that it couldn't be voted away. So which is it? Either it can be voted away or it can't.
     
  12. Dmac77 macrumors 68020

    Dmac77

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
  13. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #13
    Who doesn't? :D

    She shouldn't; the Prop 8 majority is not strong enough to win that battle. Besides, Kennard's next retention vote is in 2018, is it not?

    If any justice should be worried, R. George supported the majorty opinion in In re Marriage Cases and faces a retention vote in the 2010 election.
     
  14. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #14
    Of course we can say that, not being a part of the judiciary. However, the memory of Rose Bird haunts every California justice, and has quite frankly made the judiciary a weaker branch in California. It is no longer co-equal with the other two branches.

    However, I agree that Kennard shouldn't be scared over this. She has the governor and the Legislature on her side, something which Rose Bird certainly did not have. Plus, Rose Bird was targeted because she repeatedly suspended the death penalty over and over, not because of a single ruling that upset people.

    Still, I don't think we can expect much from them. This fight is going to have to go back to the ballot box. And you can be rest assured that if George votes to uphold Prop 8, I won't be voting for his retention.
     
  15. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #15
    I can't understand why the GOP has any problem with same-sex marriage. What does this have to do with core GOP issues like national defense, corporations, and the "less" government movement?

    And why do Christians, some of them not me, have a problem with same sex marriage? Christians tolerate Muslims getting married, yet Christianity has a very different world view. Christianity tolerates communists getting married, and there's a different world view there. Why the attack on gay marriage? There may be a few points where Christianity does not agree with gays and lesbians, but there is far more conflict with Christianity vs. Islam, communism, capitalism (love of money in particular), and many other "isms".

    The attack on gays does not seem to be driven from theology, but from bigotry. If Jesus had a problem with homosexuality, he certainly said very little as opposed to his utter condemnation of greed and lust for power.
     
  16. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #16
  17. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #17
    Very interesting. I know Jesus was very judgmental on greed.

    But I think his main focus was spiritual and not political, which communism seems to be. There were many who wanted Jesus to be a political leader but he was not involved in that way. He could have started an armed uprising but he didn't. Communism, whether you agree with it or not, was initially an armed uprising/political uprising.
     

Share This Page