Debating the Amendment: Question One
As you may have read here, here, or here, there's going to be a blog debate about the upcoming gay marriage amendment.
Owen will argue the 'yay' side, and Ingrid will handle the 'nay' point of view. I'll be asking the questions.
Here are the rules:
The debate will run through the four weeks of August. Beginning this Friday, a moderator will pose a question at 1pm. Then:So, here is my first question:
Person A answers by 5 pm on Monday.
Person B answers by 5 pm on Tuesday.
Person B rebuts by 10 pm on Tuesday.
Person A rebuts by 5 pm on Wednesday.
Rinse. Repeat.
Ground rules:
- 750 word limit for answers
- 250 word limit for rebuttals
- Word limit excludes excerpts
- Excerpts may not introduce new arguments
- Comments are permissible to clarify one's own argument, but not to expand the debate
- We may not pose questions to each other
- Usual decorum and respect will be observed
- Ingrid will get the first response and then we alternate each week after that
The debate and conflict over the gay marriage amendment is based on the effect it will have on Wisconsin. Describe what this effect will be, in your opinion, including relevant societal, legal, and moral factors. Make sure to include your analysis of the effect of the infamous "second sentence."
posted by Jenna @ 12:45 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
That's "gay marriage and civil unions ban," Jenna. Or, perhaps, "proposed amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions" or "proposed ban on gay marriage and civil unions." Calling it the "gay marriage amendment" frames the vote as a referendum on whether to allow gay marriage, which is far from accurate.
That's "turning every institution upside down" Jenna.
Or, perhaps, "now we can arrest priests like in Canada" or "how do we recognize polyamorous unions. Calling it the "gay marriage amendment" frames the vote as a referendum on whether to allow gay marriage, which is far from accurate.
It's not far from accurate. The bulk of the argument is over gay marriage. However, many see civil unions as hardly different. That's what's basically being opposed in the "second sentence." Call it marriage, call it a civil union, it's pretty much the same thing if you ask me. Either the state sanctions it or they don't, but none of this game of "Let's call that marriage and that a civil union but it's all the same thing" garbage.
That's my two cents.
Hey Moderator....how about calling Owen on his "blacklisting" a link to an article showing that the Michigan Court of Appeals is still reviewing the case that is the subject of a link in his rebuttal claiming that the domestic partner benefits in Michigan were upheld in court? He is not telling the whole story and is preventing others from calling him on it by posting a link in a comment.
KC--It looks like you did put a link in the comments, but if you tried another one, or something, his spam filter probably wouldn't allow it to go through. You can email him (his email is on his blog) and he will see what's up with the link.
Post a Comment
<< Home