NEWS
Residents to decide on gay marriage ban
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)
- Cap would limit UW salaries (February 10, 2006)
- Heated vote nears for gay marriage (February 27, 2006)
- Board punishes pharmacist (April 14, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Senate takes up gay-marriage ban (March 11, 2004)
- Wisconsinites support gay-marriage ban, uncertain on civil unions (April 13, 2004)
- Same-sex marriage ban clears state Senate (March 22, 2004)
- Marriage debate rages on (March 30, 2005)
- Marriage amendment easily clears Assembly (March 8, 2004)
by Ann Babe
Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Wisconsin voters will now be asked to decide whether the state's constitution should ban same-sex marriages and civil unions.
As biting debate flooded the Assembly floor Tuesday evening, a largely partisan 62 to 31 vote eventually emerged to approve the contentious constitutional amendment and pass it on to voters.
While Republicans backed the amendment — called as Senate Joint Resolution 53 or Assembly Joint Resolution 67 — as the only surefire way to protect the sanctity of marriage from activist judges, most Democrats criticized it as a direct attack on gays and lesbians.
"There's times that we come together to make people's lives better in this house … but today is not one of those days," said Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, an openly gay opponent of the resolution. "Today we're here to debate state-sponsored discrimination."
Pocan went on to challenge amendment proponents to tell the gay community sitting in the Assembly's gallery that they don't deserve equal rights.
"I would like for you to explain to them why they have to go to every single voter in the state of Wisconsin … to ask for their individual blessings for what they obviously can do better than most people in this room," he said, referring to Richard Taylor and Ray Vahey of Milwaukee, a gay couple who has been together for nearly 50 years.
Pocan and other Democrats added the resolution reaches far beyond banning gay marriage, by precluding civil unions and domestic partnerships, as well as the more than 200 corresponding state benefits and protections.
But AJR 67 author Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, maintained the comprehensive ban is intended to protect the entire concept of marriage, not simply the eight-letter word.
"[SJR 53] will prevent them from doing what the [state] Supreme Court in Vermont did which is legalizing same-sex marriage from the bench [and] allowing for it to be called a civil union or civil covenant or whatever creative term that the Legislature in that case might come up with," he said.
According to the resolution's language, marriage is to be defined as the union between one man and one woman, and legal recognition is to be denied to any relationship status "substantially similar" to marriage.
Resolution opponents added the amendment's second sentence will actually lead to more judicial activism by forcing the courts to interpret the dangerously vague clause.
An amendment to the resolution was offered by Rep. Louis J. Molepske, D-Stevens Point, who proposed to remove SJR 53/AJR 67's second sentence. Representatives, however, voted to table the amendment.
Additionally, Democrats charged the resolution had little to do with a genuine effort to preserve marriage and more to do with underhanded political motives.
According to a number of Assembly Democrats, SJR 53/AJR 67 supporters are using the "wedge issue" to draw Republican voters to the polls Nov. 7 in an attempt to unseat Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle.
"If there ever was a cynical or politically motivated bill, it is this one," Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, said. "And you ought to be ashamed."
If Republicans were as concerned with protecting marriage as they have claimed, they would have put the amendment on the April ballot, or would have pushed constitutional bans on real social problems like divorce, Democrats added.
Democrats further said that without domestic partnership benefits, the state's economy could suffer as top professionals are discouraged from offering their skills to the University of Wisconsin, the only Big Ten college to not offer such privileges.
Gundrum, however, defended the resolution and said it does not threaten any benefits.
"To date, there has been no court in the entire country that has ruled that any of these amendments [banning same-sex marriage in other states] were intended or do prevent domestic partner benefits," Gundrum said. "It is a red herring that's out there."
As Democrats continued to dominate floor debate, Republican lawmakers largely remained silent and undeterred by Democratic pleas.
Rep. Gregg Underheim, R-Oshkosh, was the only Republican representative to vote against the amendment.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 4:02am):
I hope it passes. It's our first chance to tell the gay community that they don't own Wisconsin and that they can't bully the rest of us into accepting their lifestyle. Let them move to San Francisco if they want to get married. I for one am sick and tired of putting up with their freak shows and their gay cowboy movie. If they would have just kept it all to themselves they wouldn't have such a tough time here, but they just don't know when to leave people alone and now they pay the price.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 5:25am):
I think it is wonderful that the issue will be thrown to the voters. While we are at it, lets also vote on segregation and interracial marriage. We should always let the majority decide what is best.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 6:52am):
And once again the GOP-controlled legislature proves how out of touch, underhanded and useless they truly are.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 12:59pm):
"I hope it passes. It's our first chance to tell the gay community that they don't own Wisconsin and that they can't bully the rest of us into accepting their lifestyle. Let them move to San Francisco if they want to get married. I for one am sick and tired of putting up with their freak shows and their gay cowboy movie. If they would have just kept it all to themselves they wouldn't have such a tough time here, but they just don't know when to leave people alone and now they pay the price."
So the gay community should just keep their entire lives secret? Oh, they can be gay behind closed doors, but don't be gay in public. There should never be a movie (directed by a straight man and with two straight, male actors playing the lead roles) that portrays gayness, especially in something as important as cowboys!
You, sir or madame, need to join the modern era. They aren't trying to "bully" anyone. They are trying to get equal rights. While I think trying to get marriage now is not the best way for the gay community to go about thing (they should try to get sexual orientation added to Title VII and Title VIII, employment and fair housing respectively, first) the Wisconsin State legislature has shown that what they really want to do is subjugate gay people in Wisconsin to second class standards.
To conclude, I hope you have a gay son or daughter. Have a nice day.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 1:29pm):
This won't be an issue once all have submitted to Islam. Then the only issue will be the debate between wall-flattening vs. regular stoning to death.
***
Don't expect a word of protest from our feminist and gay groups, who now have in their midst a live remnant of one of the most misogynistic and homophobic regimes ever. They're busy hunting bogeymen like frat parties and single-sex bathrooms. The answer Hashemi gave five years ago when asked about the lack of women's rights in Afghanistan, "American women don't have the right not to find images of themselves in swimsuits on the side of a bus," is the sort of sophistry likely to curry favor among Yale's feminist activists, who make every effort to paint American society as chauvinistic while refraining from criticizing non-Western cultures. To do so would be "cultural imperialism," and we cannot have that at an enlightened place like Yale.
I personally want to know whether Hashemi supports the flattening of homosexuals via brick walls, which was one of the ways the Taliban dealt with gay men. Having written a newspaper column for nearly my entire time at Yale, I suspect some of my peers would like to see me flattened by a wall, but I doubt any of them served a regime that carried out such a practice as official policy.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=32110
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 1:38pm):
Even if it passes, I'm still going to be screwing other guys in my bedroom. I will redouble my efforts to be an sinful and immoral in honor of our State Legislature.
Bring it on, assholes.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 4:06pm):
I completely agree with the first poster. I congratule him/her on having the courage to express such a politically incorrect opinion. That's a lot more difficult that spewing the usual PC stuff that we have been fed and constantly and nearly brain-washed into believing.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 4:18pm):
"And once again the GOP-controlled legislature proves how out of touch, underhanded and useless they truly are."
ROFLMAO, wait until it's a bunch of Imams enforcing Sharia.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 8:01pm):
"So the gay community should just keep their entire lives secret? Oh, they can be gay behind closed doors, but don't be gay in public."
No, I meant you won't be allowed to force your moral views and lifestyle down other people's throats. You are all extremists morons who think you have a monopoly on the moral and cultural consciousness of our society. Maybe if you weren't such hatemonger yourselves we might support your causes, but you turned in fascists so we have to push you back. Get used to it, because we're not backing down this time!
"They aren't trying to "bully" anyone. They are trying to get equal rights."
They aren't? Then what's up with all this breeder/straight-boy-got-a-problem-with-his-own-sexuality-cuz-he-won't-go-see-brokeback-mountain crap? I'm serious. Tolerant straight men have been bashed over your stupid gay cowboy movie for the last two months and we're sick of it. Most straight women aren't thrilled with the potentiality of marrying a man who decides to come out and therefore turn the whole marriage upside down either. You don't have to get married to the opposite sex to deal with your own little hang-ups. One of my women friends told me "If any future husband of mine pulled that kind of stunt, I'd sue him AND divorce him right to kingdom come. He won't go laughing to his gay bed buddies out there how he nailed a breeder babe. And if we already had kids by the time he comes out he'd lose visitation rights for damn sure!"
Not trying to bully anyone, huh? It's time the straight majority stood up to you. The issue now goes to referendum and we'll find out just how little clout Wisconsin liberals have these days. Bring it on!
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 8:03pm):
"Even if it passes, I'm still going to be screwing other guys in my bedroom. I will redouble my efforts to be an sinful and immoral in honor of our State Legislature.
Bring it on, assholes."
Ah, so straights are assholes now, eh? Well, there goes my support for gay rights issues. You're on your own now, gay boy.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 9:21pm):
Theres no reason why gays need to be married. Marriage is something that is held between a man and a woman not 2 men or 2 women. Gays should learn that people don't agree with them, and that they should stop pressing their ideas that being gay is ok, its not. Theres no reason why gays need to get married anyway, its ridiculous where this country is going. Just another attempt by the rainbow toting groups that they need to be recognized and feel that they are accepted in society but they arent.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 10:21pm):
To the last poster, this IS the beginning of imams enforcing sharia. Only, this is "Christian" sharia and the imams are called tele-evangelists or GOP senators. Wait for your turn. The Bible contains a lot of very nasty passages (like the Koran). Just wait until they finish with the homosexuals. Women that have abortions and doctors that perform abortion are next. You could be right after that. WE ARE THE BORG-AGAINS. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMULATED.
Anonymous (March 1, 2006 @ 10:24pm):
"And once again the GOP-controlled legislature proves how out of touch, underhanded and useless they truly are."
Kid, it's not just the GOP. It's also a lot of liberals who are finally fed up with liberal extremists forcing their agenda upon everyone else. Just think of it as a badly-needed cooling off period. Extremists have had a great time bashing the rest of the country. Now it's payback time. Get used to it!
