NEWS
Rally aims to increase awareness of gay marriage rights
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Yuyun Hartono:
- Tenant center informs of renting issues (February 24, 2005)
- Professor discusses outbreaks (February 2, 2005)
- Classes utilize blogs (January 26, 2005)
- UW groups plan aid for tsunami victims (January 20, 2005)
- Rally aims to increase awareness of gay marriage rights (December 13, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Protestors march for gay marriage (April 19, 2004)
- I now pronounce you? (February 6, 2004)
- Wisconsin bill to legalize gay-marriage proposal (February 12, 2004)
- Marriage debate rages on (March 30, 2005)
- Wisconsinites support gay-marriage ban, uncertain on civil unions (April 13, 2004)
by Yuyun Hartono
Monday, December 13, 2004
University of Wisconsin student members of the Civil Marriage Equality Coalition held a rally on Library Mall Saturday afternoon to stop the proposed Wisconsin constitution amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
In the rally, CMEC invited three speakers to speak about the amendment and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender marriage rights. Approximately 30 people attended to listen to the speakers.
UW students and Madison residents who are members of CMEC also stood outside Memorial Library and the Pres House to ask passing students to sign petitions.
The rally ended with a march down State Street.
Terry Schmidt, a UW senior and member of CMEC, said the purpose of the rally was to increase students’ awareness of the state legislation and to encourage Wisconsin legislators to vote against the amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships and civil unions.
“The state congress is going to vote in January 2005 whether or not same-sex marriage is outlawed. If they pass the amendment, the vote will go to referendum,” Schmidt said. “We want to stop it because [same-sex marriage] is not something we need to vote, it is a civil right. You cannot just put civil rights up for a vote.”
A main focus of the rally was to encourage students to sign petitions that will be sent to the state legislators and to increase students’ awareness of LGBT marriage issues.
Schmidt said not all UW students are likely to support same-sex marriage, but said the movement is not only about marriage, but also about the struggle for civil rights.
“We are not trying to convince [people who disagree with LGBT marriage] that same-sex marriage is [good], but discriminating people from their civil rights is wrong,” she said. “[Civil rights] are fundamental for democracy.”
Lindsey Saunders, a member of CMEC, said the proposed amendment would not only take away LGBT marriage rights, but also threaten the rights that same-sex couples have. These rights include claiming inheritance and social security benefits and adoption, according to Saunders.
“The amendment goes really far. It hurts [LGBT] families,” she said. “If one partner dies, the other cannot get the inheritance, and they cannot claim [properties that belonged to their partners]. In extreme cases, they may be homeless.”
Brooke Davis, a UW senior who listened to the speakers during the rally, said although she is not involved in this issue, she is sympathetic and supports the movement.
“I think it is awful that they will ban gay marriage,” she said.
Davis added she did not mind spending time on Library Mall for the rally despite the cold weather and impending final exams.
“This is more important than studying for finals. I always learn something from a rally,” she said, adding she hopes her presence Saturday will contribute to change, citing “power by numbers.”
Anonymous (December 13, 2004 @ 9:17am):
There is no "ban". That is a loaded term. No where does the law "ban" gay marriage or gay civil unions. Instead, we have an affirmatively stated privilege of marriage that just doesn't happen to include gays.
What these folks wish to do is "expand" the current definition of marriage to include gays.
It is funny how this phrasing actually significantly affects public opinion.
Anonymous (December 13, 2004 @ 12:01pm):
First stupid comment. This amendment is about the civil rights of gay people. We pay taxes send our kids to school and make important contribution to society as a whole. Go take your pompous CHRISTIAN ass someplace else. GO CANADA. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING REAL AND ACCEPTING.
Anonymous (December 13, 2004 @ 3:59pm):
Stupid comments should not be reacted to with insults, but rather reasonably dissected to expose their inaccuracies. The redefinition of marriage is in fact a ban because it is a reaction to the fight for lgbt civil rights. Nearly all of the national debate regarding this issue is about same-sex marriage. If the ammendment were not a ban against gay rights, then it would be completely unecessary because lgbt people are presently not able to marry. Voting against the ban does nothing to guarantee any rights for lgbt people, but it does block a blatant attempt to undermine civil rights and the constitution. It is interesting this person brought up the importance of phrasing, because most voters have been led to believe that the marriage somehow prevents gay marriage from being "forced" onto the American public. People also commonly think it does not allow marriage, but still leaves room for other civil rights such as inheritance or civil unions. In fact, it would block all of more than a thousand rights afforded to straight couples, effectively making gay people second-class citizens, which is unconstiutional and, I'd like to think, un-American. Finally, this is not a Christian issue, it is a matter of tolerance. There are many Christians who are good, logical people, and the image of any religion in general does not deserve to be tarnished because of the exposure in the media of their most extreme followers. There are many gay Christians and many churches and organizations that love and accept their lgbt members and clergy.
-Ryan Grant Long
Anonymous (December 14, 2004 @ 1:51am):
There is no such thing as a "gay right to marry." If you want to marry a man move to Canada, we don't need your gay ass here.
Poster 2: there is something inherently wrong with gays "having kids."
Anonymous (December 14, 2004 @ 2:03am):
Ryan Gay Long:
List those 1,000 benefits that are accorded to unmarried heterosexual couples. Where are they???????? Oh that's right, they don't exist!
Ryan Long (December 16, 2004 @ 5:49pm):
I feel like I am in grade school. Does anybody who is against gay marriage have the capacity to respond logically?
Saying there is no such thing as a gay right to marry begs the question. If it were made legal, there would be a right. That argument is circular and invalid. Telling me to move to Canada is not only hateful, but it reveals the author's ignorance of the fact that there are millions of gay Americans who contribute to our society, including 65,000 military personel (you could show a little more respect for some of the people helping to defend the rights you take for granted). The statement that there is something inherently wrong with gays having kids is off topic, and containts no evidence to support it. The problem with the earlier remark that marriage is not a ban can be easily illustrated with this example: If a restaurant posts a sign that says "non-smokers only", would anybody dispute whether it was intended to ban smoking? They are both saying the same thing and having the same effect, but one is just positively worded.
For those of you ignorant of history who believe that Christianity has always been intolerant of homosexuality, I suggest reading John Boswell's book "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality". You will find vivid descriptions of same-sex unions that were performed for hundreds of years. You will also see that the type of hostility toward gay people rampant in American culture is a relatively recent development that only goes back a couple of generations, despite the fact many conservatives raise their children to believe the world has always been the same as it is now. There have been and continue to be many societies that accept homosexuals as a normal human variation, including ones that adhere to Christian beliefs.
Then again, that point should be irrelevant because the first ammendment clearly states that government and religion are separate in this country. Or does the strength of your personal feelings somehow trump the Constitution?
Finally, the issue from an lgbt standpoint is not whether "marriage" (as defined as the legal recognition of a Christian custom) should be expanded. The issue is one of equality, because as I have said the ammendment blocks not only gay marriage, but also civil unions of any kind whatsoever. Therefore, it is the civil rights that are at stake, not the definition of marriage. Hence, the protestors signs read "stop the civil union ban", not "force Christians to accept gay people."
I understand this is a heated debate, but are there any conservatives willing to analyze it critically instead of saying whatever pops into their heads because they've been raised to be angry at gays? Really, some seriousness and maturity on the part of the opposite side would be quite welcome.
Anonymous (December 16, 2004 @ 5:50pm):
I feel like I am in grade school. Does anybody who is against gay marriage have the capacity to respond logically?
Saying there is no such thing as a gay right to marry begs the question. If it were made legal, there would be a right. That argument is circular and invalid. Telling me to move to Canada is not only hateful, but it reveals the author's ignorance of the fact that there are millions of gay Americans who contribute to our society, including 65,000 military personel (you could show a little more respect for some of the people helping to defend the rights you take for granted). The statement that there is something inherently wrong with gays having kids is off topic, and containts no evidence to support it. The problem with the earlier remark that marriage is not a ban can be easily illustrated with this example: If a restaurant posts a sign that says "non-smokers only", would anybody dispute whether it was intended to ban smoking? They are both saying the same thing and having the same effect, but one is just positively worded.
For those of you ignorant of history who believe that Christianity has always been intolerant of homosexuality, I suggest reading John Boswell's book "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality". You will find vivid descriptions of same-sex unions that were performed for hundreds of years. You will also see that the type of hostility toward gay people rampant in American culture is a relatively recent development that only goes back a couple of generations, despite the fact many conservatives raise their children to believe the world has always been the same as it is now. There have been and continue to be many societies that accept homosexuals as a normal human variation, including ones that adhere to Christian beliefs.
Then again, that point should be irrelevant because the first ammendment clearly states that government and religion are separate in this country. Or does the strength of your personal feelings somehow trump the Constitution?
Finally, the issue from an lgbt standpoint is not whether "marriage" (as defined as the legal recognition of a Christian custom) should be expanded. The issue is one of equality, because as I have said the ammendment blocks not only gay marriage, but also civil unions of any kind whatsoever. Therefore, it is the civil rights that are at stake, not the definition of marriage. Hence, the protestors signs read "stop the civil union ban", not "force Christians to accept gay people."
I understand this is a heated debate, but are there any conservatives willing to analyze it critically instead of saying whatever pops into their heads because they've been raised to be angry at gays? Really, some seriousness and maturity on the part of the opposite side would be quite welcome.
Anonymous (December 18, 2004 @ 2:51am):
By the way, here's an example regarding University employees:
Partner benefits are the same as spousal benefits and may be broken down into two categories:
Soft Benefits (lower cost, non-health benefits). For example:
Bereavement and sick leave
Adoption assistance
Relocation benefits
Child resource and referral services
Access to employer recreational facilities
Participation in employee assistance programs
Inclusion in employment discount policies
Hard Benefits (generally including insurance benefits) such as:
Medical benefits
Dental and vision care
Dependent life insurance
Accidental death and dismemberment benefits
Tuition assistance
Long-term care
Day care
Flexible spending accounts
Why should we offer Domestic Partner (DP) Benefits?
DP benefits make good business sense. These benefits are provided for two basic reasons:
to attract and retain the most highly qualified staff, faculty, and students; and
to establish a positive working and learning environment.
Currently, over 100 universities offer DP benefits including six Big Ten institutions, all Ivy League institutions, and several state-dependent universities, including the entire University of California system.
How are "domestic partners" defined?
The term "domestic partners" refers to two people in a on-going relationship who are:
sharing a residence
over the age of 18
emotionally interdependent
not related
intend to reside together indefinitely
Unmarried heterosexual couples may also be acknowledged in DPB policies. This inclusion expands the definition of domestic partner to better recognize the true diversity of families.
If we extend benefits to same sex couples, wouldn't that be giving LGBT people "special rights"?
LGBT persons are seeking equitable employee compensation. DP benefits amount to equal pay for equal work. An LGBT employee in a committed relationship is in effect paid less than a heterosexual co-worker whose legal spouse receives such benefits. Health benefits can constitute 40% of an employee's total compensation.
(http://www.lgbtcampus.org/faq/domestic_partnership.html)
