Rhetoric on Autopilot
The world doesn't need to hold its collective breath anymore waiting for Neil Heinen of Channel 3 in Madison to tell them how to vote on the gay marriage amendment. The Word of Heinen has been handed down on tablets, and reads (my bold):
Next Tuesday's election here in Wisconsin will be watched around the country for a number of reasons and one of those is the potentially precedent-setting vote on the proposed amendment defining marriage. We very much hope this amendment is defeated, and Wisconsin is seen as a national leader in offering a tolerant environment to all.
Rarely is a word so accurately reflective of a ballot question as the word "fair" is to the marriage amendment. Opponents are urging a "no" vote for a fair Wisconsin. We agree. The proposal to define marriage, which is already adequately defined in our constitution, is nothing less than an attempt to codify unfairness, to make mean-spiritedness and bigotry the law of the state.
Of course, he meant to say "adequately defined in our statutes," and not "constitution." The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. But it just goes to show that the rhetoric on this proposed amendment is completely on auto-pilot. Instead of this sloppy missive, he could have just said:
"Ummm... vote "no" on the amendment because it's unfair, and, ummm.... here's a collection of some more words that kind of sound like what I've been hearing from my lefty pals."