Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel OpEds Rehash Gay Marriage
Milwaukee - A year and a half after Wisconsin voters enshrined discrimination into the state's constitution with the so-called "Marriage Protection" amendment, the newspaper with the largest circulation in the Badger State has published two opinion pieces revisiting the issue. The May 1 editions of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel carried "Point Counterpoint" columns by two straight-identified authors that invoked the almost-predictable references to the Bible, Anna Nicole Smith and The Cleavers of "Leave It To Beaver," albeit with the softer invective possible when discussing matters after the fact.

Polite Prejudice Is Still Prejudice
  The pro post-amendment piece, penned by real estate appraiser Gary Kraeger, suggests the author could have lived with the vote had it gone the other way. "I voted to prohibit it when the issue was on the Wisconsin ballot in 2006, but if the vote had gone the other way, I would have respected that. Certainly, neither side has a provably correct argument," Kraeger wrote. "This is something you decide by feel. Even if I were emperor, I'd leave this one up to the populace."
  Kraeger went on the repeat the mob-mentality "let the people decide their neighbor's inalienable rights" argument proffered by amendment supporters. "Ideally, the legality of gay marriage should be decided by a series of national referendums. First, you want to be sure the populace clearly and consistently favored it before changing policy. It would be unworkable to allow gay marriage, then not allow it and then allow it again. Also, gay marriage involves national issues that affect us all, such as federal tax law and Social Security survivor's benefits," he wrote.
  Yes, that's right, Mr. Kraeger - the same federal and state taxes gay couples pay disproportionately because of your personal bias that opposes the reality of gay lives. And those are the same Social Security benefits denied gay couples who paid into the same system that gives them just to you, Mr. Kraeger. That way you get a little more, they get zip. How selfish of you. Is this what the Golden Rule means to you?
  Kraeger then dons his gay apparel and pretends to be one of us. "If I was gay and wanted to get married, I wouldn't care if the government or anyone else chose to bless my union. I wouldn't care about any benefits, either. I know that makes me unusual," he wrote. Well, Mr. Kraeger, you're not gay You've never been beaten up, cursed at by people like you. You've never been treated as "less than" by people who don't even realize they're being biased. In other words, you simply don't get it.
  You wouldn't care about the benefits? Really? How about doubling the cost of your insurance premiums, club memberships, and the costs of the other 1100-plus perks saying "I do" legally brings. My guess is that - if you really thought about it - you'd care a lot about the benefits.
  Kraeger then uses the "never gonna change" argument: "Once you accept that the government is always going to be in the business of marriage, society has every right to decide what is and what is not marriage," he wrote. I don't have to accept your "fact," Mr. Kraeger. Western Europe is not in the "marriage business." Couples there have their church weddings and then register their relationships separately with their respective states. Our government stays in the "marriage business," mixing the religious and secular because it profits you personally.
  Kraeger then begs forgiveness. "We should be able to do this without being called homophobic, too - that's not helping to persuade. And a little FYI: The periodic mocking of Christianity isn't helping, either," he wrote. "We shouldn't tell gays there's something wrong with them, and they shouldn't say there's something wrong with those who disagree with gay marriage."
  Well, Mr. Kraeger, I've heard what goes on when evangelicals "preach to the choir" - the virulently anti-gay messages that don't get into the polite talking points you gussy up for public consumption. We're sick, we're perverts, we're diseased. Once and awhile the public does get to hear the unvarnished rants version of your beliefs from fringe followers like Ralph Ovadal and Fred Phelps. I won't call you a homophobe, Mr. Kraeger. You are not afraid of us. You hate us. Be honest. If you had a magic button that made us all go away, you'd push it. Just because you couch your hatred in civil terms doesn't make it any less hateful. Shame on you.
  After alluding that restrictions to gay marriage is similar to those for polygamy and incest, then following up with suggested sacred text prohibitions and plumbing problems, Kraeger decides its all about vocabulary.  "I think for most people, though, it's just a sense that one woman and one man married should have a name and status unto itself," he wrote. "Anything else would need a qualifier."  Okay, Mr. Kraeger, you can have the official word "marriage." Make the government give it back to you. Make the lawmakers take it out of every law and statute and put "civil union" in its place. It's all yours. Gay couples just want the legal recognition. We just want the equality. Everyone can have a civil union, even you. But you and yours can have the M word - officially.  Wasn't that easy?
  After referencing the "activist judge" argument, Kraeger sums things up by cautioning everyone to "go slow." Well, if you really wanted to go slow, why did you push the amendment in the first place? To read Kraeger's editorial sans catcalls, click here.

Is Humorous Help From Friends Helpful At All?
The author anti post-amendment piece by retired teacher Thomas Zachek attempts to leaven support for same-sex unions with a bit of sarcasm disguised as light humor. Gay readers know we're already in trouble when we read how Zachek characterizes an issue central to our lives.  Zachek wrote: "I don't get why gay marriage is such a big deal."  Well, then, maybe you should leave the op-ed writing to someone who does, Mr. Zachek.
  Zachek then goes on to poo-poo the inconsistencies of the Bible, the outrageousness of Ann Coulter's "10,000 year old institution" of marriage claim,  the historical changes in marriage perspective and "straights screwed up marriage in the first place with 50% divorce rates, quickie Vegas nuptials, yaddy yada" argument - all the while verbally lip-biting to suppress a chuckle. "This is just so much fun, isn't it" he essentially winks to his readers. Since you've heard it all before, it's really not worth excerpting for the most part. But if you really want to, you can check it out Zachek's piece in full by clicking here.
  One thing Zachek did get right: the apparent hypocrisy of gay marriage opponents. "One of the reasons people condemn homosexuality is the belief that gays are promiscuous and sexually irresponsible," he wrote.  But when gay couples want to be faithful and stable, evidently it's still not OK." But you have to understand, Mr. Zachek: since we're already "abominations" in the sight of their personal Imaginary Friend, we're truly damned if we do and damned if we don't.
  Zachek sums up his "defense" for supporting gay marriage by writing:  "Let's worry about things that really threaten our society. Need a list?"  That's right, let's just sweep the lives of tens of thousands of real people living in Wisconsin under the rug while we get onto the "true business" of social change. With support from self-satisfied liberals like this, it's going to be a long time before gay marriage equality becomes a reality.
  Of course, I have to ask, what's the Journal-Sentinel's purpose of bringing up the gay marriage canard at this point in time? Have we passed some historic marker? No. Do the editors want to re-inject gay marriage into the Presidential debate? Possibly, but the timing is way off. Is there some sort of socialist May Day moment going on here? If this were the Cap Times, I might buy that.
  My guess? It's all about circulation. Gay marriage does one thing for mainstream media - it gets eyeballs. Many people still want to read all about it more than they do other political issues. For religious types, gay folks and political junkies, gay marriage is as good as American Idol or Dancing With The Stars. It gets people to buy papers and click stories online, all good for the Journal-Sentinel's bottom line. They miss the "good old days" of 2006 when those readers couldn't wait to read the next chapter of our state's gay political soap opera. How better to perk up a slow news cycle than with a fond retrospective?
  So there you have it: two straight authors, comfortable in the personal plusses of their own marital status quo have a toy gunfight over our lives. The Journal-Sentinel gets a few more bucks in its pocket. And what do the gay people who have daily struggled with the inequality of their lives and loves both before and after the adoption of an amendment that really didn't change anything get? The usual - nothing.