I bet it was fun too...

...writing this editorial: (The Chetek Alert, 11/01/06)

Added to a host of potentially close election races on Tuesday's ballot are two state amendments. Both have been hot-button topics for citizens, one for over 100 years and one more so in the past two decades. But what percentage of the masses is truly affected by these two amendments?

One amendment regards the union of marriage. With a "yes" vote, only a marriage between "one man and one woman" will be recognized as valid in Wisconsin. Approval of the other amendment would enact the death penalty for cases involving first-degree intentional homicide, if supported by DNA evidence.

...

There are dozens of reasons critics are using to oppose the gay marriage and civil union ban, including the rash of benefits that would be lost to happily unmarried couples. But both amendments can be construed as attempts to legislate our morals and ways of thinking.

This is conservative northern Wisconsin. While we like to say we're open-minded, we are also aware there are many Mel Gibsons-in-hiding. Most don't want their daughter marrying her college roommate. But they don't want her marrying meth-head Eddie down the street, either. Don't suppose you'll see that on any ballots in the near future. Will we soon try to govern a divorce rate that escalates at unbelievable rates each year? Our forefathers would've never guessed we'd reach this point.

These are types of legislation that should take place in a living room, not a legislative room. Some voters no doubt carry these issues close to their hearts for personal reasons. But don't you wish your lawmakers were spending their money and time on other topics of interest that affect you every day?

Hat tip: Fair Wisconsin
"A fair Wisconsin votes no"
--------------------


Here's another one, told by Coleman:

Wisconsin State Representative Steve Freese was one of the sponsors of the civil unions and marriage ban. Over the last two years, I traveled to his office twice, and met with him in his district to urge him to drop his support of the ban. Frankly, I found him callous and uncaring about his gay and lesbian constituents. By chance, I’ve had occasion to meet and talk with his wife several times during this same period. I always found her delightful and personable. This week, Dawn Freese wrote a letter to the Platteville Exponent explaining why she thinks her husband is wrong:

“Many important points have been argued in print lately about the Gay Marriage Amendment. However, I am frustrated with the fact that perhaps the most important issue involved has not been given any ink.

Therefore, in spite of the fact that my own husband co-sponsored the proposed amendment, I would like to voice the main reason why I intend to vote no on Nov. 7.

The proposed amendment to Wisconsin’s constitution would limit the civil rights of a specific group of citizens. Think about this one hard, folks. This is no small thing. If you think it is, consult the Federalist Papers and the history of constitutional amendments. The U.S. Constitution, which our state constitutions are supposed to uphold and be modeled after, was intended to be amended rarely and prudently.

Amendments weren’t made to satisfy specific political agendas, but to protect our citizens’ rights and the integrity of the Constitution. The first 10 amendments, The Bill of Rights, expanded basic civil rights to all citizens.

History proves the reverence Americans have held for our government’s framework and the civil rights it guarantees. When our founders first framed the Constitution, the only citizens who were allowed to vote were propertied white men. Since that time, Americans have amended the document to give non-property owners, black Americans, women and American Indians the right to vote. As our nation has grown, the Constitution has grown to reflect our expanding notion of civil liberty.

In sharp contrast to that tradition, some are proposing to amend our state’s constitution to limit the civil rights of a specific group that they deem to be not worthy. This fact should be alarming to all who love freedom.

I am alarmed enough to speak out and vote no.”

Dawn Freese
------------------