News

Gay marriage debate heats up

The divisive debate over the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Wisconsin continued to rage as supporters and opponents flocked to the State Capitol Tuesday morning to attend a legislative joint committee hearing.

The proposed amendment, officially termed Assembly Joint Resolution 67, or Senate Joint Resolution 53, "requires that marriage be defined as the union of one man and one woman," according to Senate author Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau.

"Marriage is the foundation of our society. It always has been and hopefully always will be," Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, the resolution's Assembly author, said. "It is perfectly legitimate for the state to look at marriage as it currently is between a man and a woman and want to preserve that."

Additionally, contracts substantially similar to marriage — including civil unions — would be denied legal recognition under the provisions of the resolution, also known as the "Defense of Marriage Act."

Hundreds of law scholars, medical experts, religious leaders, organization representatives and concerned citizens joined state legislators of the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees to exercise their right to free speech and provide public testimony in favor of or against the resolution.

Both supporters and opponents cited a plethora of reasons for their views, referencing sources equally as varied, ranging from Supreme Court cases to scientific studies to Bible passages.

Supporters charge their actions are a protective measure designed to defend traditional marriage for the welfare of society as a whole and pointed to the institution's tremendous influence in raising healthy, happy children.

"It all comes down to the most important civil-rights issue of them all: the right to a father and mother that are best able to provide for … their children, the most vulnerable citizens of our society," E. Lee Webster from the Center for Human Development, said.

In response, opposing experts testified the proposed amendment would in actuality hurt Wisconsin children by effectively targeting the kids already in same-sex-parenting situations and unfairly punishing them. Speakers further questioned the validity of the opposing argument, referring to marriages ending in divorce.

Many supporters of SJR 53/AJR 67 additionally argue the approval of same-sex marriage could result in a dangerous slippery-slope scenario, in which the absence of a clearly drawn legal line could eventually lead to incestuous, pedophilic and polygamous marriages.

While supporters cited numerous reasons for their disapproval of same-sex marriage, SJR 53/AJR 67 opponents see the proposal as nothing but a direct attack on homosexuals' inherent liberties as Wisconsin citizens and human beings, arguing the furtherance of equal rights does not jeopardize the allegedly threatened institution of marriage.

Sen. Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee, taking the place of absent committee member Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, spoke against the proposed ban.

"I think all the constitutional amendment does is take away rights," Carpenter said. "I think it was [Supreme Court] Justice Ginsberg who said the history of constitutional law in this country has been the adding of rights, not the diminishment of rights in our constitutions."

Former Sen. Joe Wineke returned to the Capitol to voice his opposition to the amendment.

"I am here to say you are abridging the rights of many individuals in this state, and what you are doing is wrong," Wineke, who is also chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, said.

Such rights at stake, according to SJR 53/AJR 67 opponents, encompass more than simply the symbolic statement of a marriage or civil union, but the corresponding benefits received by a spouse.

However, according to resolution author Fitzgerald, "This resolution does not prohibit the state, local governments or private companies from granting privileges or benefits such as health-insurance benefits, pension benefits, joint tax-return filings, hospital visitations, etc."

Many citizens, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, expressed concern that such benefits legally guaranteed to married couples are not likewise ensured to their same-sex counterparts but are instead subject to the individual discretion of other entities.

Richard Taylor and Ray Vahey, a same-sex couple from Milwaukee, attended the hearing to make a plea to legislators, communicating the struggle they face to achieve equal benefits.

"For 49 years, we have yearned for a marriage recognized in America," Vahey, who met Richard Taylor in 1956, said. "A civil marriage and all of the recognition, dignity, benefits, obligations and responsibilities that go with it should rightfully be ours."

Opponents of the resolution also said it is absolutely unnecessary, as Wisconsin statutes already deny legal recognition to same-sex couples.

However, Fitzgerald said that barring same-sex marriage in the state will protect its laws from infringement by "activist judges and overzealous county clerks" in other states that allow same-sex unions.

Amendment supporters also argue marriage in Wisconsin is under attack.

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] requires all states to recognize the contracts, court orders or obligations of other states to be recognized unless limited by Congress," Fitzgerald said. "While Congress has passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act … some constitutional scholars argue the federal DOMA will not withstand a constitutional challenge."