NEWS
Falk, Cieslewicz attack amendment outlawing gay marriage
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Abby Peterson:
- In-Depth: What's a UW degree worth? (November 18, 2004)
- In-Depth: The students that shape the UW (October 7, 2004)
- In-Depth: Bush, Kerry largely ignore higher-education issue (October 14, 2004)
- In-Depth: Who is the higher-education candidate? (October 14, 2004)
- In-Depth: Higher tuition threatens public education (September 9, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Madison a pocket of gay marriage support (March 30, 2004)
- City Hall gets served: Employee files grievance (February 6, 2007)
- City, county aim to clean up lakes (October 9, 2007)
- Madison notables protest marriage ban (September 29, 2006)
- TV ad backs gay-marriage ban (October 31, 2006)
by Abby Peterson
Tuesday, March 9, 2004
Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said Monday that successful passage of the state constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage would threaten domestic-partner benefits in Madison and Dane County.
Both officials argued that the proposed amendment would invalidate the status of relationships between same-sex couples, thus depriving them of health-insurance benefits they have traditionally been granted in the area.
“This legislation could force local governments that have made the decision to treat their employees fairly to reverse that decision,” Falk said in a release. “It is harmful to our employees, citizens and their families.”
The amendment, which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman, passed the Assembly by a large bipartisan majority Friday. It is expected to be voted on and passed by the Senate this week.
Although supporters of the amendment argue that the proposal is meant to only prohibit civil unions between gay couples in the state and not to undo government benefits for such couples, Falk and Cieslewicz claim the language used in the proposal is so broad it could be used to make domestic-partner benefits illegal.
According to a memo to Falk from the Corporation Counsel, the language included in the amendment proposal could invalidate the city or county recognition of long-term relationships between same-sex couples necessary for granting government benefits. A portion of the marriage amendment reads, “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”
Don Taylor, chair of the County Chairmen for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, said although the Wisconsin Republican Party did not have an official response to Falk and Cieslewicz’s statements, he did believe a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would mean counties would have to act in line with state law.
“If the state treats marriage as the union between a man and a woman, then counties will not be allowed to treat two men or two women [as a marriage],” Taylor said.
