A united front against discrimination

I'm not crazy enough to think anything that I say here will sway a voter one way or another so even though I've posted a lot in the past about the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions, I doubt anything I type today will change a vote. But when was the last time the major newspapers in our state have all editorialized the same way on an issue?

Here is a sampling of the editorials compiled by One Wisconsin Now:

From The Tomah Journal:
"For as long as homosexuality has been a political issue, gay men and women have been condemned as filthy, sinful and abnormally promiscuous. It's against this backdrop that many gays and lesbians yearn for the mainstream values embodied in faithful, lifetime relationships. Gays who embrace this lifestyle should be encouraged, not discouraged, which is why Wisconsin voters should reject the marriage amendment on the Nov. 7 ballot."

From The Monroe Times:
"Hopefully, Wisconsin residents will see this ballot question for what it is - an attempt to discriminate against and deny freedoms to fellow citizens. It is discouraging to even have to state editorially that this shouldn't be allowed."

From The La Crosse Times:
"The issue really is not about gay marriage. That is already banned by Wisconsin statutes. The real danger in this amendment is what would happen to any unmarried couples because of the second sentence, banning civil unions and adversely affecting relationships "similar" to marriage. The amendment is unnecessary. Gay marriage already is banned in this state."

From The Beloit Daily News:
"Unfortunately, the language of the proposed amendment goes too far. It prohibits 'a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.' What the heck does that mean?"

From The Oshkosh Northwestern:
"Voters' beliefs and decisions are, honorably, their own to keep and make. But the Nov. 7 state referendum amending the Constitutional definition of marriage is more un-Wisconsin than 'On Wisconsin.'"

From The Appleton Post Crescent:
"It's true that, someday, the issue of same-sex marriage or civil unions in Wisconsin might end up in a courtroom. But passing this amendment virtually guarantees that it, and other related issues about how we define domestic life, will end up in a courtroom because of the uncertainty of its language. This is the wrong answer for our constitution, so it’s the wrong answer for Wisconsin."

From the Sheboygan Press:
"If we really wanted to protect marriage, we would be spending more time and money on efforts to reduce domestic violence. We would be working to ensure that all families have access to adequate health care. We would be working to wipe out hunger and poverty in children. These efforts would do more to protect marriage and family than a constitutional amendment designed to discriminate against a fairly large segment of society -- many of whom, we suspect, adhere to the same conservative positions as Republicans, who ushered the amendment through the Legislature and onto the ballot."

From the Capital Times:
"Amending the constitution to require discrimination goes against everything that Wisconsin stands for. It breaks faith with the most fundamental of the values that have guided this state for all of its 158 years."

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
"But this amendment, as worded, is not just harmlessly unnecessary; it's dangerous. The pernicious potential of this amendment is to undo protections, current and future, provided to both unmarried homosexual and heterosexual couples."