rep. gundrum believes that marriage is and should only be between a man and woman. "that's what it always has been since the dawn of time."
anyway. here's another wisconsinite, uw-oshkosh professor bill mcmonkey, standing up and saying "hold on". (something he's done before -- bill's got a bit of a history of political activism.)
i'm happy there's at least someone who isn't standing idly by.
UPDATE / 11:15 pm -- another wisconsinite who is standing up. one of my political heroes, actually.
UPDATE / 12.31.07 -- as long as we're (i'm) on the subject: when promoting his amendment, rep. gundrum used a recent new jersey state supreme court ruling to help justify (scare?) the folks in wisconsin into voting for it --
"today, the new jersey supreme court handed down a ruling that changes the definition of marriage and orders the state of new jersey to begin marrying same-sex couples. once again, an activist court has imposed its own liberal agenda on citizens who get no say in the matter."
problem is, gundrum's statement was patently false. that's not what the new jersey supreme court did. in fact, even conservative groups in new jersey realized that, and began pushing for civil unions as opposed to gay marriage. from the associated press, nov. 28:
TRENTON, N.J. - conservative groups in new jersey are pushing a proposal that would grant the rights of marriage - but not the title - to gays, siblings and others involved in domestic partnerships. the plan comes in reaction to a landmark supreme court ruling last month that said gay couples in new jersey should have access to the same rights and benefits as married couples. whether to call those rights marriages, civil unions or something else was left up to lawmakers.
in december 2006 the new jersey state legislature passed a bill providing for civil unions, it was signed into law by governor jon corzine, and the "civil union act" came into effect on february 19, 2007.
UPDATE / 12:47 am -- okay, plenty of others stood up in wisconsin.