Milwaukee 7 Y La Enmienda, Resumen Del Estado

En el Journal Sentinel hay un articulo sobre el Milwaukee 7 (en Ingles). Es una coalición de condados del sudeste de Wisconsin, creado para poner en marcha estrategias economicas para esta region. Los condados son: Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Walworth, Washington, y Waukesha.

Pero como votó esta region en la enmienda que defina matrimonio y prohibe uniones civiles? A ver:

Rango	Voto	Condado	Votos 'No'	Votos 'Sí'
8	Y	Milwaukee	141,476 (45.05%)	172,568 (54.95%)
15	Y	Kenosha	19,558 (40.80%)	28,373 (59.20%)
22	Y	Walworth	12,650 (38.16%)	20,499 (61.84%)
33	Y	Ozaukee	14,915 (36.53%)	25,914 (63.47%)
35	Y	Racine	24,875 (36.19%)	43,868 (63.81%)
52	Y	Waukesha	55,079 (31.75%)	118,392 (68.25%)
70	Y	Washington	13,800 (26.26%)	38,742 (73.74%)

Hemos oído mucha discusión sobre el impacto de la enmienda. Ahora que esta aprobada, como afectara al sudeste del estado? Pues, con el tiempo ya veremos..


Notas:

• Dane fue numero uno en votando no (hmm.. no es sorpresa, la diferencia fue mas de 33%).
• La Crosse and Dane fueron los unicos condados que votaron no.
• En La Crosse, la diferencia entre sí y no era 16 votos.
• Florence terminó ultimo en la lista con 1,515 votando sí y 481 votando no.

Milwaukee 7 And The Amendment, State Summary

In the Journal Sentinel is an article about the Milwaukee 7. It is a coalition of counties in southeastern Wisconsin, created to discuss economic strategies for the region. The counties are: Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha.

Let's take a quick look at how southeastern Wisconsin voted on the amendment that defines marriage and bans civil unions:

Rank	Vote	County	No Votes	Yes Votes
8	Y	Milwaukee	141,476 (45.05%)	172,568 (54.95%)
15	Y	Kenosha	19,558 (40.80%)	28,373 (59.20%)
22	Y	Walworth	12,650 (38.16%)	20,499 (61.84%)
33	Y	Ozaukee	14,915 (36.53%)	25,914 (63.47%)
35	Y	Racine	24,875 (36.19%)	43,868 (63.81%)
52	Y	Waukesha	55,079 (31.75%)	118,392 (68.25%)
70	Y	Washington	13,800 (26.26%)	38,742 (73.74%)

There has been much debate about the amendment's impact. Will its passage affect southeastern Wisconsin economically? We'll just have to wait and see on that one..


Side notes:

• Dane tops the vote no list (hmm.. no surprise, with over a 33% difference).
• La Crosse and Dane were the only two counties to vote no.
• In La Crosse, the difference between yes and no was 16 votes.
• Florence ends the list with 1,515 yes and 481 no votes.

Con Gracias.. Pero Estamos Un Poco Al Reves, No?

Estos dias, tengo muchisimas gracias por mi salud, mi trabajo, mi pareja, mi casa, y mi familia. Tengo los mejores amigos que una persona puede tener. Que tal el tiempo en que vivimos, no?

En el 28 de Octubre, mi familia recibio alguien nuevo: Adan Facundo Marchan-Ellefson, y sus padres son Adam Ellefson y Guadalupe Marchan. Visite mi sobrinito el fin de semana pasado. Cuando lo tenia en mis brazos senti un orgullo tremendo, pero a la vez lo miraba con deseos que este mundo era un poco diferente. Mi hermana y su pareja me contaron una pregunta bien rara de personas en Duluth: "que tipo de Mexicano es?" Y no nomas de una persona pero varias.

Pero asuntos de lesbianas, gays, bisexuales, transgéneros, e intersexuales siguen con interes. Mas y mas, el mundo se convierte en uno con mas tolerancia para nosotros. Por ejempo, en Sudáfrica (ingles), matriomonio homosexual casi es realidad.

Pero en estos Estados Unidos, la gente estaba mas interesada en los asuntos de las estrellas Kelly Ripa y Clay Aiken. Y luego tenemos a Michael Richards (aka Kramer del programa Seinfeld) el cual pidio perdon por su reaccion a la gente en uno de sus shows de comedia. Mientras el pidio disculpa en el David Letterman Show, unas personas en el estudio estaban riendo pensando que era parte de algun chiste. Triste, no?

Este pais es bueno para vivir por varias razones, pero todavia me parece que estamos al reves en unos aspectos. Una compañera del trabajo me envio unas estadísticas interesantes sobre religion y homosexualidad (en Ingles). Asi que podemos compararnos a otros paises.

Pero lo que me enojo esta semana es esto. Mi pareja estaba leyendo noticias en el Internet. Encontro un articulo sobre un accidente grave (en Ingles) de un camion de escuela. Senti muy mal sobre el accidente. Pero ese sentido fue sobrepasado por enfado sobre la seguridad de estos camiones.

No tienen sinturones, pero si tienen una luz sobre el techo para que otros conductores los pueden ver en las calles. A mi esto parece como hipocrisa: Como puede ser que nos inculcan la necesidad de poner un sinturon en un coche - pero NO HAY SINTURONES en estos autos grandisisimos que transportan nuestro futuro?

No entiendo..

Thankful.. But Aren't Things A Little Backwards?

These days I'm thankful for my health, my job, my partner, my home, and my family. I have the greatest friends in the whole world. What a time to be alive.

The family recently welcomed a new addition, Adan Facundo Marchan-Ellefson, born to Adam Ellefson and Lupita Marchan on October 28. (if you know me you'll get a chuckle with my reminder about Spanish pronounciation, the 'a' sound never changes). I visited my youngest nephew last weekend, held him with a whole lot of pride, and wished the world he was coming into was just a little bit different. My sister and her partner shared one of the most unusual questions they've ever heard from people: "what kind of Mexican is he?" And they got this from a number of people up in Duluth.

Umm.. right..

When it comes to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex issues - things continue to get more interesting. More and more does the world become a tolerant place for us to live in. Take South Africa, where lawmakers are now sanctioning gay marriage.

But then there are these United States where earlier this week people seemed more concerned about a certain Kelly Ripa & Clay Aiken incident. I confess, it caught my attention and it took me a while to wrap my mind around this one. Then there are the audience members on the David Letterman show that thought that Michael Richards (aka Kramer) was joking and they actually laughed during his apology. Sad. He was apologizing over losing his temper during a comedy performance.

Don't get me wrong, this is a great country to live in for quite a few reasons - but when it comes to certain areas we seem a bit backward.. A coworker forwarded some interesting statistics on religion and homosexuality. So you can see how we compare against some other countries.

But what really got me going this week was this. My partner was perusing headlines online. He came across an article covering an unfortunate and tragic accident involving a school bus. I felt really bad about the accident. But the feeling was greatly overshowed by anger over the safety of school buses.

You know, those big yellow vehicles with no seat belts but with a "safety design" which includes a bright flashing light mounted on top for increased visibility? Is it me, or is this the ultimate example in double-standards? It is drilled in our heads to wear seat belts while traveling in a moving vehicle. Yet these buses, whose primary purpose is to transport the future of our country to and from school, DO NOT HAVE SEAT BELTS.

Hmm..

Jerusalem (Español)

Me fascina mucho oir de un mitin de orgullo en Jerusalem. Lea este articulo (en Ingles) en la revista The Advocate sobre el evento. Y aprende quien dijo esto:

"Como lesbiana, como mujer, como judio, y simplemente como ser humano, tengo el derecho de vivir mi vida como lesbiana en Jerusalem, abiertamente en mi ciudad, cercas de me familia, mis amigos, mis vecinos, y compañeros del trabajo. Si nos mudamos a otra ciudad, Tel Aviv, Amsterdam, o San Francisco nos encontraremos centimetro tras centimetro delatando a matónes y la violencia."

Que cierto, no?

No encontre un articulo cubriendo el evento, pero si encontre este articulo que se trata de preparaciones para el evento.

Jerusalem

Fascinating. A gay pride rally in Jerusalem. Here is a rather interesting article from The Advocate about the event. Find out who said the following:

"As a lesbian, as a woman, as a Jew, and simply as a human being, I have the right to live my life as a lesbian in Jerusalem, openly in my city, close to my family, my friends, my neighbors, and my work mates. If we flee to another city, Tel Aviv, Amsterdam, or San Francisco, we shall find ourselves centimeter by centimeter giving way to bullies and violence."

How true indeed.

Arizona (Español)

Ya estoy sintiendo mejor sobre los elecciones de este año. Me fascina lo que esta sucediendo fuera de este estado.

Me intriga que el comentario de mis amigos heterosexuales suena mucho como lo que aperece en este articlo sobre las tacticas del grupo Arizona Together (en Ingles). Una lección que aprendi de Viaje A Las Estrellas aplica: los necesidades de la mayoria sobrepasan los necesidades de la minoria. En Arizona, enfocaron en el impacto a todas parejas con personas no casadas y pudieron trabajar en las necesidades de la mayoria y la minoria entre ellos.

Arizona

I'm starting to get over the outcome of the election here in Wisconsin. I'm fascinated as I watch what is happening outside of this state.

What intrigues me is that the feedback I've been getting from my hetero friends is pretty much what this article states about Arizona Together's tactics. One of the lessons I've learned from Star Trek most definitely applies: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Arizona has focused on the greater impact to all unmarried couples and in doing so, has taken care of the needs of both the many and the few among that group.

Introduccion (Español)

Bueno. Tipicamente no escribo mucho pero estos dias, con lo que ha sucedido aqui en Wisconsin, no quiero detenerme. Y, por que? (primeramente perdonenme por no incluir mis acentos)
Asi que Wisconsin voto "sí" a la enmienda que prohibe uniones civiles y matrimonio para homosexuales. Que lastima. Pero como dicen en ingles, "its just a matter of time," o sea con el tiempo los votantes de Wisconsin se daran cuenta de lo que hicieron. Nunca entendera por que el voto salio de esta manera, y las razones que los votadores votaron como votaron.

My Take On Today's Culture War

On September 3rd, I wrote my take on today's culture war and placed it on my web site. I later found out that it was distributed throughout my family, and that they really liked it. Check it out..

So.. how and why did you vote?

So. My recent volunteer experiences at Fair Wisconsin and encouragement from a gentleman over at the Journal Sentinel have inspired me to start a blog. That said, welcome to my very first entry. :)

Election Day 2006 has come and gone. A couple days after the election, dealing with the surprising and seemingly illogical outcome, I started making a list. It was one way for me to deal with the outcome. Perhaps I'm a sore loser. If that's the case then I'll take it as a compliment for simply wanting gay couples to have the same rights as other couples.

When for whatever reason people deem it necessary to use a document such as a state Constitution to stick up for one's feelings about any particular institution, devise a ban, and in effect turn an entire group of people into second class citizens..

well..

what can one say.

Oh and btw: Mexico City has passed legislation to essentially recognize civil unions for unmarried straight and gay couples. A leading gay activist is quoted as saying the law represents "Mexico's entrance into the first world of democracy, along with other countries that recognize this type of union."

Gee. Wonder what that says about the United States. At any rate, here goes.. my brainstorm from the morning of November 9:

###

If you voted yes to the amendment because the Vote Yes side told you so, then question your decision making process.

If you voted no to the amendment because the Vote No side told you so, then question your decision making process - but at least it was a vote for fairness.

If you voted yes to the amendment because the Vote Yes side told you so and you carefully considered their reasons, then you only did some of your homework.

If you voted no to the amendment because the Vote No side told you so and you carefully considered their reasons, then you only did some of your homework.

If you voted yes to the amendment because the Vote Yes side told you so, you carefully considered their reasons, and objectively researched what straight marriage vs. gay marriage is about, then good for you.

If you voted no to the amendment because the Vote No side told you so, you carefully considered their reasons, and objectively researched what straight marriage vs. gay marriage is about, then good for you.

If you voted yes to the amendment because you were confused about the wording, then I don't know what to say to that.

If you voted no to the amendment because you were confused about the wording, then good for you.

If you voted yes to the amendment because you thought you were voting yes to gay marriage, then you did not do your homework.

If you voted no to the amendment because you thought there would be no change, then you only did some of your homework.

If you voted yes to the amendment because you thought that it clearly defined marriage, then look at a dictionary for a refresher on how definitions work.

If you voted no to the amendment because you thought it vaguely stated what shall be valid or recognized in this state, then good for you.

If you voted yes to the amendment because you thought that it clearly solidifies the institution of marriage, then question your separation of church and state.

If you voted no to the amendment because you were not sure how it solidifies the institution of marriage, then question your separation of church and state - but at least it was a vote for fairness.

If you voted yes to the amendment because your church told you so, then question your separation of church and state.

If you voted no to the amendment because your church told you so, then question your separation of church and state - but at least your church understands the separation.

If you voted yes to the amendment because "marriage is a package deal," then question your separation of church and state.

If you voted no to the amendment because "civil marriage and religious marriage are independent," then good for you.

If you voted yes to the amendment because "gay people are (insert slang with negative connotation here)," then.. well, then I guess I don't know what to say to that.

If you voted no to the amendment because your beliefs tell you "a constitution should not invalidate something for an entire group and therefore stay out of individual lives" (in other words, no place for bans) then good for you.

If you voted yes to the amendment because you believe gay people do not deserve the same rights as other people, then thank you for imposing your beliefs on others.

If you voted no to the amendment because you believe gay people deserve the same rights as other people, then thank you for imposing your beliefs on others AND voting for fairness.