NEWS
Pocan defends same-sex marriages, criticizes amendment
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by John Potratz:
- Sex and the City star shares views on life (September 30, 2005)
- ASM threatens lawsuit (October 21, 2005)
- ASM member resigns from position in protest (November 10, 2005)
- UW ranks No. 1 party school (September 1, 2005)
- Galloway's early visit spurs debate (September 14, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Marriage vote changes (February 22, 2005)
- Wisconsinites support gay-marriage ban, uncertain on civil unions (April 13, 2004)
- Residents to decide on gay marriage ban (March 1, 2006)
- Marriage debate rages on (March 30, 2005)
- State legislators seek constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages (November 20, 2003)
by John Potratz
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
State Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, spoke to University of Wisconsin students and faculty at a “teach-in” at the Memorial Union Tuesday in opposition to a proposed amendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution banning gay marriage and same-sex civil unions.
Pocan, who said he was gay, spoke of the importance of participation in the amendment’s opposition, stressing homosexual issues are the next front in the protection of civil rights.
“This is the civil-rights battle of our lifetimes — this is discrimination based on sexual orientation,” Pocan said. “Ultimately, we will win this battle.”
Pocan said in addition to banning gay marriages, the proposed amendment also bans civil and domestic unions. This would disrupt existing homosexual and heterosexual partnerships by banning civil and domestic unions in addition to gay marriage if passed. Pocan said this would exclude partners from joint health-care benefits and insurance in addition to raising child-custody issues.
UW Associate Dean of Students Lori Berquam said the amendment would further complicate partnership issues she already faces due to current university employment policies.
“Heterosexuals get the benefits of their partners being covered for health insurance — I’m paying for my insurance, but I also have to pay for my partner’s insurance [independently],” Berquam said. “I have a great job, I love my students, I love my staff — [but] I’d move out of the state if it passes.”
Numerous other attendees at the teach-in said they would leave if Wisconsin failed to recognize their partnerships. Pocan said he predicted a mass exodus of gays and lesbians if the proposed amendment passes, in addition to a dramatic decrease in Wisconsin tourism.
“Being born and raised in Wisconsin, I’m proud of pretty much everything Wisconsin stands for,” said undergraduate student representative of LGBT issues Brad Schmock. “But I can’t live in a state or community where I don’t feel like my rights are respected.”
Pocan said he suspects the primary objective of the amendment is not to exclude homosexuals from marriage rights in Wisconsin. He believes the amendment is a political ploy intended to oust Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, a strong opponent of the constitutional proposal. Pocan said in November 2006 the proposed amendment would draw conservatives to polls who would vote against the incumbent governor as well as in favor of the amendment.
“This is far more of a tool to get out a certain type of religious-right voter than it is something that legislators believe in,” Pocan said. “I think our challenge is to make them answer some tough questions.”
The teach-in was sponsored by various student organizations, including the Faculty Senate Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues Committee.
The proposed amendment localizes an increasingly controversial topic and moral issue.
“To each their own — it’s [homosexuals’] own business what they do behind closed doors,” Joe Wagstaffe, a UW senior, said. “Gay person does not mean bad person.”
A similar bill was passed once by the Wisconsin Legislature but vetoed by Doyle. The amendment must be passed a second time by the state Senate and the Assembly to appear on the ballot in November 2006. Many Republican state legislators proposed the amendment in hopes of protecting family morals and heterosexual marriages.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 9:17am):
go ahead and leave... we won't be missing ya.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 9:33am):
Are the people in Wisconsin stupid?, can't they see that law has nothing to do with religion, for very good reasons, think! before you make any comments about it.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 10:07am):
Ummmm, I don't think that is Mark Pocan in the photo. Check here: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/assembly/asm78/asm78.html
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 10:20am):
wow, he lost weight and grew lots of hair apparently.
So someone still answer me this. Who is going to prove that these people are really gay and in love before they get married? As a straight male, what prevents me from "marrying" my roomate since he works for the university just so I can get the benefits while I am in college. Later I can just "divorce" my roomate when I am going to get married for real (to a woman). Seems like easy abuse to me, or is there a rectum exam involved.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 10:41am):
What is stop you from "marrying" a female roommate to ge the benefits?
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 11:09am):
Im not exactly sure, but im guessing that guy makes his case because for a straight male... cheating the system and being married to his buddy would be different than marrying another woman. If ya dont think so, im pretty sure your head is in your ass. But again, I didn't make the post, so i am just guessing here.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 11:30am):
If you are just marrying someone for health insurance or something, how would being married to a man or woman be that different?
Heterosexual couples don't have to prove they are in love to get married. So why should gays if and when it deemed legal for them to marry?
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 12:27pm):
I have no problem with midgets getting married on TV for my amusement, or with woman whoring themselves on tv for the love of a rich man, but I will be damned if two men in love ruin the sanctity of marriage!!
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 1:39pm):
Gay men and lesbians will eventually prevail because they're much smarter than backward-ass hick conservative homophobes.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 1:50pm):
"Heterosexual couples don't have to prove they are in love to get married. So why should gays if and when it deemed legal for them to marry?"
And how would they prove it anyway? Do they have to strip down and start making love on the steps of city hall?
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 1:53pm):
It's Chris Ott in the photo; he's the head of Action Wisconsin. Check them out on the web at www.actionwisconsin.org. They're the state's leading LGBT civil rights organization.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 1:54pm):
also notice how a lot of the members of congress, who say that gays marrying will ruin the sanctity of marriage, have also had multiple divorces, affairs, and misc. other "happenings" which have been swept away.
no, gays will not ruin marriage, straight people already have.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 2:05pm):
Regarding the comment about marrying your same sex roommate just to get health benefits. How idiotic! Do you have a clue as to how much it costs to reach a settlement and get divorced later on?
On top of that nobody is saying that your church is going to suddenly have to perform gay marriage ceremonies even if they do not sanction them. Nothing will change within your church! Calling the whole topic "gay marriage" is fear mongering toward people too stupid to figure out that life isn't going to change all that much. Well, aside from gay people finally be treated equally for once.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 2:54pm):
"Do you have a clue as to how much it costs to reach a settlement and get divorced later on?"
What, never heard of a pre-nup?
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 3:41pm):
"What, never heard of a pre-nup?"
You need a lawyer for that too...plus WI is a marital property state.
Saying that we cannot allow same-sex legal benfits because it will be too easy for people to cheat the system is just dumb.
People have married non-citizens to help them get citizenship and that system has been tweaked over the years to make it more and more difficult to cheat. If it's found out that people are cheating the system through same-sex marriage then tweaks can be put in place as well.
Really though, can you picture some jock frat boy explaining to his sweet Buffy that his gay marriage was only to help a brother get medical benefits? Sounds like e bad Tom Hanks sitcom to me.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 5:14pm):
This whole "people will use gay marriage to cheat the system" is just a way for conservatives to grasp at straws when all their other arguments opposed to gay marriage get shot down.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 5:42pm):
My biggest problem is the bigot who stated that we will not know how homosexuals are in love. (so that they can "have permission" to get married) As previously stated, heterosexuals DO NOT have to prove they are in love. There are plenty of gold-digging women who do not marry for love, and only marry for the benefits. Do they have to stand up in front of an audience and fuck their husband to prove their love? And how exactly would we measure that? There are plenty of foreigners who attempt to marry American citizens so that they, too can come here, be a citizen, and start a life.
And the comment about how religion has nothing to do with it?!?! Ask most conservatives and they will tell you that the bible states that it is wrong, and they wish to keep the sanctity of marriage. Too bad the sanctity of marriage has already gone to hell, with rising divorce rates and the like. And you do realize that if gay marriage is banned in the constitution, Wisonsin as a state loses revenue because there are currently certain partner rights that you can obtain here, and homosexuals would move out of the state. WAY TO BE DISCRIMITORY AGAINST PEOPLE FOR NO F*CKING REASON. I'm sure jesus gives you pat on the back for that.
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 8:52pm):
www.hookahuniversity.net for wholesale hookah products
Anonymous (March 2, 2005 @ 11:43pm):
Thank you! I mean seriously, let's give the international community another reason to laugh at us, by writing discriminatory legislation into our States and our national Constitution! The United States, and our campaign to end unfair practices throughout the world, end unfair governments, end violence and suppresion against women, to end all the evil in this world, yet we can't even protect our own people from enjoying the rights of everyone. Welcome to the United States of Hypocrisy!
Gay marriage is a state, LEGAL issue. This is about equal protection under the law, and let's start there first. As for the comment about forcing these people to show their love for one another, well, whoever believes that needs to get a life. Perhaps this is how you get your kicks? Well, it's about time your balls got a break. Instead of worrying about who is getting married, let's worry about, oh, I don't know, better education, ending poverty, particularly among children, fixing health care, and even saving Social Security, because believe it or not, it's our butts on the line in a few years to make sure grandma and grandpa and Mom and Dad have a place to live and money to pay their bills!
Ken Scott (March 3, 2005 @ 11:14am):
John Potratz,
I appreciated that your March 2 article succinctly captured so many of the important points on this proposed amendment. Then the last sentence took me by surprise: "Many Republican state legislators proposed the amendment in hopes of protecting family morals and heterosexual marriages." As Rep. Pocan and others commented earlier in your article (and in the above comments), the amendment has no relevance to "protecting" morals or heterosexual anything. Perhaps you were trying to be balanced, but parroting the other side's baseless claims, with no evidence of their truth, isn't the way to do it. On the other hand, if you ever do find any credible arguments that, for example, my life partnership with another man threatens others' morals or marriages, THAT would be news!
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 9:50pm):
It makes me VERY angry that our elected officials are wasting their time on yet another useless piece of legislation that would probably end up being found unconstitutional anyway!
Why don't they get their heads out of the butts of their political contributors and do something constructive (like pass a budget that makes sense, without the usual pork attached).
Anonymous (March 13, 2005 @ 10:28am):
Why do you have a picture of Chris Ott instead of Mark Pocan?
