Pam Spaulding, the proprietor of Pam's House Blend made a post on Tuesday called "Madison, Wisconsin strikes at marriage amendment with oath proposal" in which she made some ignorant remarks. Firstly:
I want to be happy about this, but this proposed token gesture by the city of Madison does nothing to soothe the real-world wounds of the gay and lesbian population of Wisconsin.
The gesture she refers to is the option for officials to voluntarily amend their oath of office and tag something on at the end indicating their disagreement with the recent change to our state's constitution outlawing gay marriage and anything substantially similar. What Pam doesn't seem to understand is that the amendment to the oath is not meant to soothe the wounds of Wisconsin's gay and lesbian populations. Instead, it is meant to assuage the consciences of oath takers who oppose it. And, contrary to the article she cites, the proposal would make the amendment to the oath voluntary, not a requirement.
Because of the constitutional amendment, Ms. Spaulding says that homosexuals "are now second-class citizens". Wrong again. Gays and lesbians have always been second-class citizens here. The change to the constitution affirmed what was already state law – that same-sex marriages are unlawful. If anything, they are now third-class.
Next she writes:
…for those whose families are now legally vulnerable due to the passage of the amendment, or people thinking about doing business with or moving to Wisconsin, they know that the voters have spoken, and now it's time for gays and allies to speak with their feet and wallets in response.
That, however, doesn't mean deserting those who are still fighting for equality in the state -- Fair Wisconsin did the best they could to defeat the amendment and will continue working for change.(Emphasis hers.)
So all gay people and folks who think the amendment to the constitution are shite should leave the state. Oh yeah, but send a nice letter of support to Fair Wisconsin. Didn't we just have a holiday in honor of a man who embodied something a little more positive, a little more hopeful than "Give up and move to Massachusetts or California"?
I do agree with her that speaking with one's wallet is a good idea. If you're bound and determined to avoid states that ban gay marriage, then all I can say is good luck because the vast majority of states in this country define marriage heterosexually and deny gays the right of civil unions as well. If you want to move to or do business with a state that is doesn't deny gay folk these rights, then you've got slim pickings - just a handful. Instead of avoiding Wisconsin, why not choose to give your money to gay-friendly businesses? If you want to move to Wisconsin, then move to a gay-friendly town like Madison. Two-thirds of Dane county voted against the amendment. Instead of avoiding our state by moving elsewhere and paying lip service to Fair Wisconsin, why not make that move and join the fight?
As Bill Lueders pointed out, Wisconsin's progressive tradition is as dead as a doornail. But telling people to run away is just plain ridiculous.
I've been reading The Blend for awhile, and I too was disappointed by Pam's take on the oath issue. I think it's a great way to acknowledge that there is a problem and that said problem is going to be dealt with as opposed to swept under the rug. That said, I wonder what exactly *will* happen.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of dropping Pam a note about this - I couldn't imagine Madison without any gay people (it would be like Llanddewi Brefi)! Seriously, though, as far as 'economic sanctions' against the state, I can see someone saying, "I'm going to bring my conference to Minnesota, not Wisconsin" , but it makes a lot more sense to say, "I'm going to bring my conference to Madison, not Milwaukee because Madison voters overwhelmingly rejected the amendment." I think Pam fails to realize how devastated many were with the passage of this amendment.
The D.