Friday, August 04, 2006

Blog Debate on the Marriage Ban

A month long blog debate on the proposed marriage ban is starting today between Ingrid Ankerson from No on the Amendment and Owen Robinson from Boots and Sabers.

Jenna from Right off the Shore is moderating. She'll post a question each Friday around 1:00pm, and here's the rundown of how it will work from there:

Person A answers by 5 pm on Monday
Person B answers by 5 pm on Tuesday
Person B rebuts by 10 pm on Tuesday
Person A rebuts by 5 pm on Wednesday

Ingrid and Owen -- who will be responding from their respective blogs -- will take turns being "Person A" and "Person B" each week.

Ingrid is scheduled to be "Person A" for the opening question this week, which is:

"The debate and conflict over the gay marriage amendment is based on the effect it will have on Wisconsin. Describe what this effect will be, in your opinion, including relevant societal, legal, and moral factors. Make sure to include your analysis of the effect of the infamous 'second sentence.' "

(Side-Note: That's a HUGE question!)

I encourage everyone to follow the debate as it proceeds throughout the month. Both sides are sure to be respectful and well-informed, which should make it a very interesting discussion.


Blogger Dave Diamond said...

Any word from Jenna on how the debate is going to impact UW College Republicans' efforts on the ban, one way or the other?

I can see how a number of them are genuinely conflicted on the issue; in my experience, college-age conservatives are generally more libertarian and less prejudiced.

August 04, 2006  
Blogger Seth Zlotocha said...

I haven't heard anything about where the UW College Repubs stand on the ban. When Sykes did a survey of conservative bloggers back in March, Jenna reported that she was undecided. I imagine that's still the case since she was chosen as moderator.

I agree that younger conservatives would be more likely to oppose the ban than older conservatives -- and I think that's true across idelogical lines.

The polls certainly show more support for the ban with older people than younger, which is a big reason why proponents want the ban passed sooner rather than later. It's almost as if by passing a constitutional amendment on the issue, they're able to freeze time (and subsequently public opinion) at this point before the polls flip. Of course, a constitutional amendment can always be repealed, but that's a much harder process than simply writing a new law.

August 04, 2006  
Blogger Jenna said...

I know that's a huge question. I hope that each blogger focuses on the things he/she things most important, or the biggest impact it will have.

I tried to start off very broad in order to find points of contention between the two and ask more specific questions from here on forward.

Should be interesting!

August 04, 2006  
Blogger Seth Zlotocha said...

I wasn't trying to be critical of the question -- I actually agree it's a good one to start the debate (it just happens to be big). That way, as you point out, the broad issues get out on the table, and they can work from those to get into more specifics.

August 04, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home