Monday, October 23, 2006

League of Women Voters

Definition of marriage
Several people opposed to gay marriage got up and left an informational meeting last week hosted by Fond du Lac's League of Women Voters. The league, known for it's non-partisan offering of facts on political issues, has come out in vocal opposition of an amendment that would change the state Constitution.
*CHOKE*SPUTTER* The League of Women Voters is so very partisan, I wouldn't even know where to start.
"What happens if you don't have a definition of marriage? It's to protect the rights of individual citizens of this state," said James Kiser of Fond du Lac before exiting the forum.
A couple of years ago, I didn't think we actually needed to define marriage, it was a given that marriage consists of ONE man, and ONE woman. Simple! As Owen said on Charlie Sykes last week, it's worked for thousands of years. There's a saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
"To me, it's a matter of fairness. This would hurt the benefits of anyone in a relationship that's not married," said Eric Schultz of Fond du Lac, co-chair of the local FAIR Wisconsin Action Network.
In a fair world, I'd be tall, skinny and rich, but that hasn't happened, and isn't likely. Be gay, have a lifetime partner, make a will, a living will, make sure you've got all your ducks in a row, but do not ask me to sanction a relationship as a marriage that is "unnatural". My opinion actually has nothing to do with my faith, although it is an influence. Nature (G-d) has decided there will be no children produced with two males, or two females. If that were to happen, I'd be the first to say "go for it".
Local high school student Calvin Freiburger, a member of Tuesday's audience at the Fond du Lac Public Library, made available a pamphlet titled "The Truth." It urged citizens to vote yes, because, he points out, the state's current law does not already define marriage as between a "man and woman." Instead, it uses what Freiburger describes as the interpretable words "husband and wife." "The same-sex marriage activists want to redefine marriage, so why not redefine these terms?" he said.
Love our Cal! I wasn't able to attend this so called forum, but I did hear about it, from several sources. An employee of the library tried to take the pamphlets away from Cal, telling him he couldn't pass them out since he wasn't paying for the room. The fact that Calvin wasn't IN the room when he was passing them out evidently didn't occur to the employee. All of those on the panel were against the amendment, and there were very few to speak out for it in attendance, only 3 or 4, if I'm not mistaken. If the League of Women Voters were truly non partisan, there should have been an equal number of panelists for and against the amendment. Update: While snooping the blogs, I came across a great post on another blog! Go, read!