An unfair Wisconsin voted yes
November 12th, 2006
I wasn’t going to blog about the obvious. But I’m irate, and it was a given.
I have not heard a single argument in favor of the marriage ban that has not been religious in nature. The very term “marriage” is rooted in religion. The matter should not be handled by the state in the first place. “Marriage is sacred,” they say. “This vote protects the sanctity of marriage.” The state is not sacred — it is secular. Let’s call this argument faulty logic number one.
Faulty logic number two comes in when determining the civil benefits for marriage are for means of protecting children and the family. I won’t waste my time repeating the many reasons this is a bad argument; anyone who has watched Grumpy Old Men can figure out why this is false.
Which brings me to my favorite, faulty logic number three: using “civil union” is just rhetoric. See faulty logic number one. If anyone is using poor rhetoric and word games, it’s those who stand in favor of this ban.
So congratulations, Wisconsin. You are unfair. You are marrying church and state. (Pun intended.) We should be changing all terminology to secular language, not passing further legislation blurring the separation.
