This week culminates a month long blog debate about the civil unions and marriage ban in Wisconsin.
Each week, a question has been posed by a conservative blogger who is undecided on the amendment. Ingrid from Fair Wisconsin, the group working to defeat the ban, and Owen from Boots and Sabers, a conservative blog in the state, both respond to the question, as well as post rebuttals to each response.
Here's the final question posed to each blogger:
I want you to sum up the strongest reasons why, in your opinion, one should vote `yes' or `no' on the ban. If you were to knock on a voter's door on November 6th, what would you want them to take into the poll with them on November 7th? What's the message you'd like readers of the debate to remember? Feel free to draw on any of the things we've talked about before, or any point I've missed in my questions.
Ingrid's answer really brings it all home, explaining again why this ban is so wrong.
Owen closes his response with this:
If our society wishes to legalize gay marriage at some point, then so be it. But we must move forward thoughtfully through our established representative bodies. To allow the courts to short-circuit this process and sweep away the definition of marriage against the public will, is to invite broad societal unrest.
It seems like Owen can't even find enough substance to fill his 750 word answer as to why people should vote for this ban. So he instead reverts to talking about the process by which rights will be inevitably extended. So...people should vote yes to prolong the process....instead of taking any real look at the substance of the issue...?
Until this debate, conservative bloggers in the state have been quiet about the ban. Maybe it's because most of it would come out like this. Unless they're willing to take amendment supporters more extreme arguments, there's really just not much left for them to say.
Ingrid's rebuttal to Owen's answer is here. And you can read past questions and answers in the debate here.
UPDATE: Each week both bloggers have an opportunity to post a rebuttal to the other's answer. Apparently Owen had no final comments in support of the amendment, as he choose to not post any response to Ingrid's answer this week. Hard to argue with that decision...