We here at the Eisman campaign are asked almost every day where Nelson stands on the ballot proposals. So, here are the answers, in a neat and tidy package.

The ban on gay marriage and civil unions

Nelson describes this proposal as "ugly." It would write discrimination into the state constitution, which flies in the face of what a constitution should be. Moreover, there is current no allowance in current Wisconsin state law for gay marriage, so it's a symbolic gesture anyway. But, symbolic of what?

It's symbolic of the desire of a small sector of the population to isolate and alienate gays and lesbians. It seeks to push them down into second-class status. This would be a big step backward, but Wisconsin's motto is "Forward!"

But there's more to it. This doesn't only discriminate against gays and lesbians, it also discriminates against straight, unmarried couples. There will be no more allowance for civil partnerships, even for straight couples. So, for both straight and gay couples, there will be no more insurance benefits, visitation rights in the hospital, power of attorney, and so on.

But there's still more to it. Spousal abuse is a felony in Wisconsin, and that applies to civil partnerships. If this proposal passed, abuse in a civil partnership would be downgraded to a misdemeanor. That means that this proposal is bad for good relationships, and bad for bad relationships.

The government has no business telling people who they can and can't form relationships with. On the contrary, to the extent that state has any interest at all, it is in encouraging stable, long-term relationships through giving them legal recognition.

The death penalty

Part of Wisconsin's proud history of forward thinking is being the first state in the union to outlaw the death penalty. In the 150 years since, study after study has proved that the death penalty is not the deterrent some people seem to think it is, and it is far more expensive than locking up convicts for a long time.

Even before such practical matters, however, there is the consideration that government has no business taking human life. The corrections system should be just that -- corrective. Prison should rehabilitate inmates, not make them even more criminal. The death penalty, by definition, can never rehabilitate anyone. In the case of criminals who are demented beyond rehabilitation, they need to be isolated from society, but if we kill them, we as a society are guilty of murder.

Even those who make a case for the death penalty have recognized that it has often been applied unjustly. For example, the percentage of minorities on death row is totally out of whack with the percentage in the general population. For another example, the state of Illinois recently imposed an indefinite moratorium on the death penalty, because a number of innocent people were found to have been executed. It is a tragedy when an innocent person spends years in jail, but that person can still be released. When an innocent person is executed, that mistake cannot be undone.

Concealed carry

Our society has plenty of problems, but having too few guns on the street is not one of them. Concealed carry would do nothing more than turn low-level conflicts into violent confrontations, resulting in injuries and death to participants and bystanders alike. Proponents claim it would mean fewer workplace and school shootings, but this argument simply doesn't hold. More guns will lead to more violence.