NEWS
Marriage vote changes
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ann Babe:
- Legislators introduce Jessica's Law (October 20, 2005)
- Parisi seeks prison releases (October 21, 2005)
- State Street getting 'freaky' (September 14, 2006)
- Concealed-carry veto override attempt fails in Capitol (February 1, 2006)
- Doyle signs bill redefining abuse law (February 17, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Marriage debate rages on (March 30, 2005)
- Senate takes up gay-marriage ban (March 11, 2004)
- Same-sex marriage ban clears state Senate (March 22, 2004)
- Wisconsinites support gay-marriage ban, uncertain on civil unions (April 13, 2004)
- States deny marriage (November 5, 2004)
by Ann Babe
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
A proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages in Wisconsin will not appear on the April 5 ballot, as had previously been speculated.
Instead, the proposal will likely go up for a statewide vote in November 2006.
In order for the amendment to appear in April's election, which will determine a number of local seats, the State Legislature would have had to approve the resolution by today. Though the first consideration was approved by the Republican-based Legislature, the second consideration did not meet the deadline.
Democrats allege the delay is simply part of a sneaky effort by the GOP to elect a Republican governor, arguing conservatives will be more likely to vote if the same-sex marriage issue is on the ballot.
"I think it's very clear now that it's strictly a political maneuver," State Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, said. "Many people have suspected that this is not about policy as much as it is about influencing people."
According to State Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, Democrats find it suspicious that the delay "just happens to coincide with the partisan [gubernatorial] election."
Conversely, Republicans staunchly maintain there are a number of other valid issues at hand that have instead contributed to the vote's postponement.
Mike Prentiss, spokesman for State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said "the Legislature is voting on not just the legislation itself but also how it will be worded."
According to Prentiss, lawmakers wish to write a clearly and properly worded amendment, in which there is no ambiguity or possibility for confusion.
"We want people to know exactly what they're voting for," Prentiss said.
In response, Democratic opponents dismiss Republican claims as words with "no substance," according to Pocan. "All their rhetoric was just that — only rhetoric."
Pocan sees the delay as a mere "political ploy" that had little to do with public policy.
"The Republican party ran aggressively on the fact that there's an imaginary threat to marriage," Pocan said. "They felt the need to put [the amendment] in the constitution even though there's never been family law in the constitution."
If Republicans thought this was important, Black said, it would be on the April ballot.
"Instead, they're delaying their own amendment by almost two years," he said.
Democrats' claims are not true, Prentiss said.
"The Democratic Party has [found] yet another way to attack [the GOP]," he added.
Prentiss pointed to a number of other time-consuming priorities that inhibited the approval of the same-sex marriage amendment, including a proposed property tax freeze and state budget issues.
"I think [the amendment] is ill-advised and discriminatory," Pocan said, adding he is worried the amendment "will go way beyond what [Republicans]" claim.
However, Republicans argue Democrats are only tastelessly attacking the amendment's authors.
