Posted on 09/30/2006 8:48:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
MILWAUKEE - When it comes to statewide votes on gay marriage, the score so far is 20-0 in favor of keeping it a one-man, one-woman institution.
If there's a chance to break the streak on Nov. 7, it might be in Wisconsin, where activists believe that support from unions, college students and church leaders — coupled with hoped-for conservative apathy — could enable them to finally overcome the string of losses.
Among the hopeful are Debbie Knepke and Candice Hackbarth, devoted partners for nine years, raising a 3-year-old daughter and 7-month-old son in pleasant Milwaukee neighborhood. They have joined some 8,000 other volunteers in a bid to defeat a proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.
"It makes us mad that the Christian conservatives are so against us," said Knepke, 41. "If they came into our house, they'd find we're no different from anybody else. We're every single thing they consider good parents to be."
Eight states will vote on ban-gay-marriage amendments in November, following 20 that previously approved such measures. Passage is considered certain in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee, but gay-rights strategists believe their side is at least competitive in Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Supporters of banning gay marriage remain confident of victory, but optimism also is high in the ranks of Fair Wisconsin, a coalition fighting the proposed amendment since it surfaced in the Legislature in 2004. Large labor unions, many religious leaders, and top Democratic officials — including Gov. Jim Doyle — have spoken out against the measure.
"This could be the state where we beat this thing," said Fair Wisconsin campaign chief Mike Tate. "I'm not saying it's easy, but we've got the right ingredients on the table."
Tate believes the gay marriage issue — which helped motivate conservative voters in 2004 — is no longer fueling the same urgency, possibly diminishing conservative turnout. One reason is recent court rulings in New York and Washington state against same-sex unions, leaving Massachusetts as the only state allowing gay marriage.
The head of the rival campaign, Julaine Appling of Vote Yes For Marriage, said her side may wind up being outspent and out-advertised, but she believes Fair Wisconsin's confidence is misplaced.
"It's a gross misunderstanding of the people of Wisconsin," she said. "They are good solid stock. They understand that marriage is a good public institution — it's appropriate to protect it as the union of a man and a woman exclusively."
There have been no major opinion polls since mid-August, when a survey showed Appling's "Yes" side with 48 percent support, compared to 40 percent against the amendment. Tate says the gap is narrowing as undecided voters tilt against the measure; Appling believes the final result will be in line with Michigan and Ohio, where similar measures prevailed with roughly 60 percent support in 2004.
One of Appling's allies, Marquette University political scientist Christopher Wolfe, believes the amendment will pass, but perhaps narrowly.
"It's certainly a lot closer than the people favoring the amendment would like," said Wolfe, who observed that even at his Roman Catholic school many students oppose the ban.
Tate, at 27 a veteran of numerous campaigns, believes campuses statewide will provide vital support for his side. "This is a motivating issue for young people, whether they're gay or not," he said.
While Milwaukee and the state capital, Madison, tend to veer leftward, the rest of the state is generally more conservative. But opinions are deeply divided.
Among those opposing the amendment is Sue Werblow, 60, a longtime school board member in Oshkosh whose three children include a gay son now practicing law in Seattle.
"I would hope and pray people will stand up for nondiscrimination in our constitution, but it's anybody's guess," she said. Her son, observing from afar, "thinks we're going to lose this battle."
Kathleen Mentink, a college instructor in Eau Claire who favors the amendment, said most people in her area share her position, "but it's a quiet support." Some voters, she suggested, have been wary of revealing pro-amendment views for fear of being depicted as narrow-minded.
Debbie Knepke finds it hard to be dispassionate. Because the children she helps raise, Sienna and Nolan, were borne by Hackbarth, Knepke has no legal standing as a parent and fears passage of the amendment would dim her chances of ever gaining such recognition.
"It's the living in fear of what might happen," she said, fighting back tears. "I can't imagine, if something happened to Candy, that I would not have my children."
The campaign has divided Milwaukee's black community. U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore is among several black leaders opposing the amendment, while the "Yes" campaign has recruited a cadre of black pastors who are urging their congregations to support it.
Among them is the Rev. Walter Harvey, pastor of the 2,500-member Parklawn Assembly of God.
"Those who oppose the amendment are more aggressive in their advertising for a reason," he said. "The burden of proof is upon them — they have a longer hill to climb, more people to convince. They will ultimately lose."
Moore, a single mother, vehemently objects to the second sentence of the amendment, which would ban civil unions and other legal arrangements "substantially similar" to marriage.
She worries that such terminology could spawn litigation challenging all sorts of informal family relationships, including benefits her own children have received from their father.
Appling insists that domestic partnership benefits will not be barred as long as they don't parallel marriage rights.
But Moore contends the amendment betrays Wisconsin's politically progressive tradition.
"A constitution is a sacred document — we use them to confer rights on people, not to write in discrimination," she said. "It's completely the wrong vehicle for this kind of negative activity."
I was wandering around MU (alumni) earlier in the week and I noticed numerous messages supporting the amendment and ban on campus, none against it.
AP..
Amalgamated Propaganda ya mean?
Duly Noted. ;-)
Dr. Wolfe was my advisor at Marquette. Glad to see he is still fighting the good fight.
No problem.
I chose not to post that or any of the pics available relating to this article and the topic in general.
Note how they start the "news story" with a anecdote to prove up the MEME that somehow homosexuals are "normal". We could substitutute "wife swapers" or "animal sex" and have the same anecdote.
I also found it interesting that the homosexuals are counting on conservative apathy.
The fact of the matter is the anecdote that is the basis of the story can't change the fact that this woman has a sex fetish which defines her life. He life is defined by her recreational sex. That is everything. I makes any child in that environment an inevitable victim of a future problems.
Two children who will be screwed up adults.
Funny fact is the AP ran the EXACT SAME anecdote stories in 2004.
a pee
"If they came into our house, they'd find we're no different from anybody else."
Except for that whole thing where you, ya know, ARE!
Even Massachusetts would truly be a battleground on the marriage issue if only the Massachusetts registered voters were ever allowed to vote either "Yes" or "No" on gay marriage instead of activist judges illegally legislating from their benches on this issue.
This is the exact same mechanism they used on the boy scouts. Today, the boy scouts constantly face problems with funding. If churches lost their tax-free status, many many of them would collapse under the financial strain.
Yup.
Wisconsin is overwhelmingly Catholic. A gay-marriage ban will pass easily.
The Fed can't dictate church policy. Just as many churches choose to marry gay couples today, when it's not binding by law.
I hope they keep underestimating how folks really feel, all the way up to Election Day. They will be Sad Pandas on Election night.
The fed doesn't have to say anything about church policy... but it does control whether or not the church and its realestate are tax-free.
Basically, the feds are supporting discrimination if they are given a financial benefit (in the form of tax-free status) to the churches.
From my understanding of this situation, I don't think that is remotely accurate. They are indeed going to City Hall and demanding to get married, but I have not read of one instance where they are demanding churches marry them.
Besides, a churches are not obligated to marry anyone if they don't want to, and no one is demanding they lose their tax-free status for that. For example, they are under ZERO obligation to marry a Jew and a Muslim, are they?
I understand your outrage, but you may need to loosen your tinfoil hat a bit and stick to more sound arguments.
HA list material if you're around...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.