News

Heated vote nears for gay marriage

Sharing Tools:

E-mail this article:




Share on:

by Ann Babe
Monday, February 27, 2006 00:00

State Assembly members are gearing up to vote Tuesday on a controversial constitutional amendment to permanently ban gay marriage and civil unions.

If the amendment, officially termed Assembly Joint Resolution 67, is approved Tuesday, Wisconsin voters will then determine the resolution's fate in a Nov. 7 referendum.

While supporters and opponents alike expect representatives to pass the constitutional amendment onto a statewide referendum, their predictions diverge at the ballot box.

"I think the resolution will be passed [this] week with a very strong bipartisan vote coming out of the Assembly," AJR 67 author Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, said, adding he believes most citizens will vote to preserve the fundamental social institution of marriage as it currently exists.

But according to Action Wisconsin spokesperson Ingrid Ankerson, many citizens do not have an accurate understanding of what the amendment entails.

"We believe that Wisconsin is very fair-minded," she said. "And once they know that this would not only ban marriage but also civil unions, and possibly threaten domestic partnerships, that a majority of Wisconsin citizens will vote against the ban."

AJR 67 aims to permanently define marriage as the union between one man and one woman, but also goes further to ban any "legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage," according to the resolution's language.

Civil rights activists point to the measure's second sentence as the clause that has them so worried.

"We don't really know exactly [what] 'substantially similar' is," Ankerson said, adding a referendum approval of the amendment would "open up lots of possibilities," including measures to ban domestic partnerships.

If the courts outlawed such domestic partnerships, she added, health care and other benefits could be threatened.

While Ankerson said the resolution's second sentence dangerously places civil liberties at the whim of judicial discretion, Gundrum maintained the sentence is mandatory to preclude a different kind of judicial activism.

"[W]ithout this [amendment], the Wisconsin Supreme Court will sometime within the next few years … do the same thing the Massachusetts Supreme Court did," Gundrum said. "All it takes is four liberal activists."

As the public awaits Tuesday's Assembly vote, Ankerson said Action Wisconsin has long expected the resolution's legislative passage and will continue to promote the organization's public awareness campaign.

"I think that we will defeat it at the ballot box in November," she said. "We have been working for more than two years to educate people about this. Every day that we talk to people we gain votes against the ban."

If the AJR 67 is approved in November, Wisconsin will become the 20th state to add some sort of amendment to its constitution banning same-sex marriage.


Feedback
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 9:48am):

Let's hope the citizens of Wisconsin do the right thing and pass the amendment this fall. In my opinion, defending marriage and the family is certainly a priority, and hopefully the majority of citizens realize this.

Also, since when are gay activists fighting for "civil rights"? And please don't tell me it's the same as the struggle of African-Americans, that's silly. Black people were kept as slaves and not allowed to vote and so on. None of that applies to homosexuals.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 10:57am):

A fundamental piece of the civil rights struggle was equal marriage rights, a battle that finally succeeded when the Supreme Court tossed out anti-interracial marriage laws in Loving v. Virginia.

This movement was, by definition never an exclusively African-American movement. Civil rights has always been an interracial, evolving political struggle that attempts to bring the promise of the American Revolution to all Americans.

I agree with the earlier poster, defending marriage and the family should be a priority. That is why everyone should vote no on the civil unions ban--a ban that, if passed, would make life harder for real Wisconsin families.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 11:18am):

I don't see how gays are being discriminated against. Gay men and women already have equal rights regarding marriage. That is, if a gay man wants to get married, he can marry a woman. And if a gay woman wants to get married, she can marry a man. Just because some people like to have gay sex doesn't mean that the state should recognize them as special.

And what is this nonsense about disguising gay marriage with words like "partnership" and "civil union"? If you give gay couples benefits, then what about two guys who are just sharing an apartment? How far do you go? Well, I like my friend, and we spend a lot of time together. We're not gay, but maybe I think the government should still recognize that and give me some kind of tax break for it.

The fundamental element of civilization is the human element. This implies the family unit. A strong family structure is important for the health of society. I have no problem with gays who want to live together, love each other, or whatever. But the real family unit must be protected. To elevate gays to the level of families errodes the definition of family.

We live in a democracy, and if I'm given the chance, I'm going to vote to protect the notion of family.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 12:03pm):

Arguing that gay men can marry women or that lesbians can marry men is a denigration of the institution of marriage and an affront to the binding ties of family. Families begin and are held together by the love sustained between two people. Without that love, families and marriages crumble. Marriages between a straight woman and a gay man, for instance, can only end in pain for all involved.

Marriage equality strengthens families by allowing all loving, committed couples access to the strengths, rights, and responsibilities of civil marriage.

That said, even for those who remain uncomfortable with the idea of extending marriage to lesbian and gay couples, this two-sentence amendment goes too far. It permanently removes the possibility of civil unions and may even take away existing domestic partnership rights.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 12:06pm):

Because, you know, it's worse for a child to be in an orphanage, or whatever they call them these days, than to be with two loving parents if those parents happen to be two men or two women instead of one of each.

What I have been unable to determine from anyone who is anti-gay marriage is any specific reason why anyone is against it. They throw out catch phrases, like "defense of the traditional family unit." Will it make your "traditional" family mean less that two men can marry each other? If so, your family has problems far beyond what the right of two people getting married can take.

If you want a distinct example of how gay marriage, or something approximating it, is extremely important: Right now gay people cannot jointly adopt a child. One of them can, and they can raise the child together. However, should the official adoptive parents die or become debilitated, the child goes back into the custody of the state, not the other parent. That's really good for the child. Really good for the "family".

For all the people who are against gay marriage, just admit it: You don't like gay people. Don't do this whole "I tolerate them" thing. There are a lot of things I tolerate that I don't like. My best friend is gay, I am not. I tolerate gay bars, but do not like most of them because they rarely play music I enjoy. I tolerate the religious right, even though I think the US would be a better place if we shipped them all off to some other country. The Sudan would be my choice, personally.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 12:22pm):

"We live in a democracy, and if I'm given the chance, I'm going to vote to protect the notion of family."

Me too. This is why I'm voting NO on the civil unions and marriage ban.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 12:37pm):

"And what is this nonsense about disguising gay marriage with words like "partnership" and "civil union"? If you give gay couples benefits, then what about two guys who are just sharing an apartment? ... I like my friend, and we spend a lot of time together. We're not gay, but maybe I think the government should still recognize that and give me some kind of tax break for it."

Civil unions, which presently exist only in Vermont and Connecticut, require the couple to make the same sorts of vows to one another that the state's marriage laws require -- lifelong committment, for better or worse, for richer or poorer. Civil unions are, by definition, the state-level equivalent of marriage in everything except the word, "marriage."

If you and your friend are prepared to make these vows in front of a justice of the peace, then perhaps you should rethink the above denial of gayness.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 12:45pm):

"if a gay man wants to get married, he can marry a woman. And if a gay woman wants to get married, she can marry a man. Just because some people like to have gay sex doesn't mean that the state should recognize them as special."

So what you're saying is, gays should just suck it up and marry someone they don't love? How the hell is that healthy for families? And it's not about the govt giving tax breaks so people can have "gay sex." It's about everyone being able to marry the person they love, and having all the same legal protections that a straight couple are given.

That's what civil rights are all about, not just suffrage. It's about all people being created equal, and therefore having the same rights.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 12:54pm):

A gay man marrying a woman isn't equality; it's tragedy or maybe (more likely?) farce.

Pity the woman. Pity the man. Pity the marriage bed deprived of pleasure. Pity the world that forces them there.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 1:52pm):

I don't know about you all, but I'd hate for my brother to marry a lesbian. That dude up above may be fine with that, but it sounds like a failure in the making to me. The only member of my family I'd want marrying a lesbian is my lesbian sister. Isn't that just what makes the most sense?

Rob Deters (February 27, 2006 @ 2:44pm):

Viva la gay rights! The only people worried significantly about the "erosion" of the American family are those already unaware of how little there is to save.

The American family has always been bigger, stranger, and less well-defined than any moralizing jerk could ever define.

The American family will be stronger by the addition of gay rights to extend to fully functional family units. After all, it is within the guise of a "normal family" that some of the most heinous crimes can be committed. Incest, anyone?

Moralizing, hand-wringing folks obsessed over "saving Wisconsin families" can leave it to the rest of us enlightened folk to set them straight. No pun intended.

Your poorly masked homophobia will simply be looked at on by the hindsight of history as what it truly is...unadulterated ignorance.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 3:44pm):

No matter what one calls it - civil union, domestic partnership, marriage - you have to sign a contract to enter one. Any man and woman willing to sign this contract can get married. They don't have to love each other; they don't have to take good care of their children. The issue is rights and benefits. Most people believe that marriage is sacred and will result in stronger families, but these are social aspects and cannot be legislated. There are homosexual couples with children who have strong relationships and strong family values. There are heterosexual couples who hate each other and fight over the children to enact revenge. Which type of couple should be allowed to marry? I'm not sure why we require a law like this to protect families. From what are we protecting them? I think we are just cowards, afraid of change and having to explain to our children the things that make us uncomfortable.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 5:03pm):

Recently a long, thorough, and detailed French study found that "gay marriage" is not in the interest of the state and of children.

See the link for more information.

http://www.defendmarriage.com/Slater_French.asp

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 7:07pm):

I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt or raise kids. I don't think it is healthy for the child. Simple biology dictates what a family is.

I am a straight, single man. As such, I do not gain the benefits that married couples get. If I choose to stay single, then I choose to forgoe those rights. Likewise, if someone chooses to be gay, then he chooses to give up those rights also. Now you might say that being gay is not a choice, but it is just the way they are. I agree with this, and that is fine. But that still doesn't imply that they should be granted special rights because they don't partake in established marriage. I am ugly, and as such I cannot have a girlfriend and can't get married. So that means I can never have the benefits of marriage. But that doesn't mean I deserve special treatment because of "who I am."

I think a good case can be made against gay marriage, civil union, whatever. I think traditional families are more important, simply because without them humanity would cease to exist. A hypothetical situation might be that, if gay couples are granted equal status, then that could mean insurance companies would be required to offer a gay spouse coverage. This would affect the rates for everyone. It is this kind of thing that I believe is detrimental to society.

As a final note, I'm glad people took the bait of my earlier posting. I just love making people mad.

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 9:39pm):

"I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt or raise kids. I don't think it is healthy for the child. Simple biology dictates what a family is."

Ever study comparing children raised by same-sex couples with children raised by opposite-sex couples comes to the same conclusion. Children are not in the least harmed by having gay parents. This is why the American Psychological Association, the National Council for Adoptable Children, the Child Welfare League of America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have taken public positions in support of gay families. These are the people who work with and study families; objectively, a family is no worse off merely for being headed by a same-sex couple.

"Likewise, if someone chooses to be gay, then he chooses to give up those rights also."

People don't choose to be gay any more than they choose to get older or choose to one day start puberty. Just last week yet another study found a positive correlation between genetics and homosexuality.

"I am ugly, and as such I cannot have a girlfriend and can't get married. So that means I can never have the benefits of marriage."

You should give yourself more credit. If you want a girlfriend, then you can compensate for lack of physical attractiveness other ways. You can work out. You can read lots of interesting novels. You can take art classes. You can ask women interesting questions about themselves. You can make your home attractive. You can become a fabulous cook. You can demonstrate the sensitivity that makes apparent you'd be a wonderful father. Women date physically unattractive men all the time. Keep your chin up and get out there. And good luck to you!

Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 10:08pm):

Of course, Ms. Slater provides no link to the study, and merely posts individual quotes from it. And from what I've seen of the study (of course none of these groups will translate it into English) it just seems like they did a survey as to where society thinks things should be right now.

The honest truth is we are several years away from being able to do a real scientific study on the effect of gay partnerships on children. What we'd need is a number of children who were raised in gay partnerships who are now adults, and we just don't have those numbers yet. Then, you compare how they are doing on a whole range of factors. Economics, education, the general happiness things.

Anonymous (March 2, 2006 @ 2:16am):

The community needs to be careful on how they present this. I am a lesbian but come from a conservative republican upbringing, and Rob (see previous comment Feb. 27, 2006) trust me when I say your comments that straight people already erode marriage and that it's within straight families that there is incest, is to insinuate that we the gays are oh so much better. This gets us no where fast. In reality there are disfunctional straight families and gay families. So please remember an US vs. THEM mentality will not help, historically speaking it never has. We are not better than heterosexuals and they are not better than us. The fact of the matter is that ALL families need to be recognized.

Here is what is really important. Wisconsin voters need to recognize that regardless of your religious/moral beliefs on homosexuality EVERYONE deserves health care and everyone should be able to cover their partner/spouse. For the professionals that have a job that provides health care coverage it is unfair to allow some employees to cover the love of their choice and not allow others the same privilege. This ban is most frightening because it also bans Civil Unions. So yes, my heterosexual friends that does mean no domestic partnerships for you as well. Be careful Wisconsin, this bill reaches into many homes, not just the gay ones!

D.H.
Ph.D. candidate UW-Madison

Place a shout-out!
Top Classified Ads (view all)

Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!

DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!

Place a classified ad

Advertising