NEWS
Marriage referendum spurs statewide ethics feud
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Dan Powell:
- Marriage referendum spurs statewide ethics feud (August 8, 2006)
- Green calls for leadership change (November 3, 2006)
- Covenant plan hits skepticism (September 8, 2006)
- Voter's guide out for Wisconsin women (September 21, 2006)
- Pro-Life Wisconsin mourns dead fetuses (October 3, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Heated vote nears for gay marriage (February 27, 2006)
- Marriage debate rages on (March 30, 2005)
- Fair Wisconsin gears up for gay marriage referendum (September 14, 2006)
- Wisconsinites support gay-marriage ban, uncertain on civil unions (April 13, 2004)
- Gundrum takes on issues (February 15, 2006)
Share This:
by Dan Powell
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Wisconsin voters will have an opportunity to decide the future of marriage in the state when an amendment referendum appears on the ballot in the general election this November.
Currently, same-sex marriage is not allowed under state statutes, but the amendment's author, Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, and most Republicans support the resolution as a precautionary measure to prevent what they see as judicial activism. Conversely, state Democrats accuse the amendment of being biased and reaching far beyond banning same-sex marriage.
"The amendment is discriminatory," said Mike Tate, campaign manager for Fair Wisconsin, a group formed in March in reaction to the amendment's passage in the state Legislature by a highly partisan vote. "We are not advocating gay marriage … but [the amendment] affects everyone — gay and straight."
In 2003, Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, vetoed a bill that would have defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. The state Assembly failed by one vote to gain a two-thirds majority to override Doyle's veto.
But it is the second sentence of the amendment prohibiting any status "substantially similar" to marriage that particularly troubles Tate.
"It would take away civil unions, preventing employers from offering domestic benefits," he said. "For people like the elderly, who are not going to remarry, it could be used to prevent them from even seeing each other in the hospital."
Yet some groups are advocating the amendment, especially that second sentence, to prevent the altering of traditional marriage.
"Once you change the definition of marriage, you open the floodgates, and there is no logical stopping point," said Julaine Appling, executive director of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin. "There is no logical or legal reason [for groups such as polygamists] to not go and say we want in, too."
In 2000, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to prevent the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, leading the Vermont Legislature to separate same-sex unions to a status identical to marriage but by another name. Then, in 2003, the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to prevent same-sex marriage at all.
Despite the constitutional amendment's ultimate effect, Tate and Appling agree the people of Wisconsin should have a say in the definition of marriage, and that students will play an integral role in this vote.
"Most [students] aren't married, and this issue isn't staring them in the face," Appling said. "But students now have the opportunity to have a say in what marriage will look like for them, their children and their grandchildren."
University of Wisconsin journalism professor Dhavan Shah, however, said students must be ready to engage in thoughtful discourse before heading off to the polls, noting complicated legal, social and economic issues often get boiled down to simple terms for the public.
"Issues like the marriage amendment or stem-cell research or abortion set up a value conflict between moral and ethical principles," said Shah, whose expertise is in political participation. "Deliberation would hopefully lead to a more reasoned and thoughtful decision."
Wisconsin will be one of six states with a marriage amendment on its ballot this fall. In the fall of 2004, 11 states voted on a marriage amendment, with the measure passing in each state.
Anonymous (August 7, 2006 @ 11:14pm):
I think everyone's rights should come up for a vote every 4 years. Gays, Women, Baptists, Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Catholics, Lesbians, Mormons, etc. etc. After all, what could be more democratic then letting the people decide? So, this year, your group might be able to vote or visit your 'family' in the hospital, and after the vote, maybe not. The "vill of the people"...a "beautiful" thing.
Anonymous (August 8, 2006 @ 8:18am):
Anon #1, everyone already has the same rights to marriage, be they gay, women, baptists, jews, hispanics, catholics, lesbians, mormons, etc etc.
Whether or not you choose to excercise your equal rights is another matter entirely.
Anonymous (August 8, 2006 @ 11:23am):
Anon. 2: How is it an equal right for strait folks to be albe to marry the person whom they love but same sex folks may not? True, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals may marry someone of the opposite sex but that is not equity.
Not too long ago the same argument was being made about marrying someone of a different race. Black folks coulkd marry black folks, white folks could marry white folks but if you loved accross racial lines you could not excersise that "equal" right.
Same sex unions need to be permitted with identical rights and responsibilities to those of opposite sex unions.
Anonymous (August 14, 2006 @ 10:57am):
Thanks for writing about this - but please don't refer to it as a "marriage amendment" - let's not make nice about this - it's a constitutional ban on civil unions and marriage
