NEWS
Fair Wisconsin gears up for gay marriage referendum
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Dan Powell:
- Changes abound in voting this fall (September 4, 2006)
- Fair Wisconsin gears up for gay marriage referendum (September 14, 2006)
- Madison notables protest marriage ban (September 29, 2006)
- Green files with Wisconsin Supreme Court (October 19, 2006)
- Lawton unveils Capitol artwork (November 28, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Marriage debate rages on (March 30, 2005)
- Marriage referendum spurs statewide ethics feud (August 8, 2006)
- Heated vote nears for gay marriage (February 27, 2006)
- Same-sex marriage ban clears state Senate (March 22, 2004)
- Wisconsinites support gay-marriage ban, uncertain on civil unions (April 13, 2004)
by Dan Powell
Thursday, September 14, 2006
On the homestretch to the November elections, campaigns focused on the gay-marriage amendment referendum have grown increasingly contentious.
The referendum, authored by State Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, seeks to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman. The issue has spurred the creation of a number of organizations statewide, some emphasizing student participation. Mike Tate, campaign manager for the opposition group Fair Wisconsin, held a teleconference Wednesday with student media across the state to discuss the issue.
"We focus a lot on college students and educating them [about the referendum]," he said. "We believe the youth vote to be the deciding factor in this election."
Tate added that Fair Wisconsin and the amendment are not focused exclusively on gay marriage, as the second sentence of the referendum outlaws anything "substantially similar" to marriage.
"The ban goes beyond marriage," he added. "It's a ban on civil unions and would endanger many critical legal protections and could jeopardize health care."
And a number of lawyers across the state have publicly denounced the referendum, saying it denies citizens their rights. Last week, 17 former — and the two current — presidents of the State Bar of Wisconsin spoke out against amendment, and the group Attorneys Against the Ban launched. The AATB, now composed of about 100 attorneys around the state, was formed to educate and mobilize attorneys throughout Wisconsin against the proposed amendment.
Yet Julaine Appling, executive director of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, told The Badger Herald such action by attorneys is an appalling use of their position.
"The State Bar's actions show they have a political position not based in a correct interpretation of state statutes or what the [Wisconsin] Constitution does and does not say about our rights," said Appling, who is also president of the newly formed Vote Yes for Marriage campaign. "The Constitution is about limiting government power."
Appling added the language of the amendment is such that it will actually prevent the need for extensive litigation on the marriage issue.
In 2004, Kentucky passed an amendment similar in language to the proposed Wisconsin amendment, which has not seen a legal challenge to date. In Ohio, though, opponents have attempted to use the state's marriage amendment to undo domestic violence protections, saying the allowance of restraining orders in a domestic relationship violated the prohibition of a legal status similar to marriage.
University of Wisconsin political science professor Donald Downs noted the key underlying issue for unmarried couples under this amendment: "Gay couples presently don't have the right to marry, but they do have the legal and political possibility of that right being recognized," Downs said. "If we amend the Constitution, it will make it impossible for them to secure that right."
If defeated by voters in the Nov. 7 election, Wisconsin would be the first state in the country to defeat a proposed marriage amendment.
Anonymous (September 14, 2006 @ 7:34am):
Marriage, as defined by almost all churches, is between a man and a woman. We do, however, live in a secular country with secular laws. Therefore, when we debate "gay marriage," we should keep church-talk in church and legal-status talk in the legislature.
We should also keep in mind that most churches are against divorce, but our state laws still recognize divorce. The opinions of the church are worth listening to, but it should not have the final answer to every question.
If you don't like people and ideas that are different to yours, maybe you should re-evaluate your status as an American. We've been a diverse culture from the beginning; every ingredient in this melting pot has only made this country better.
Anonymous (September 14, 2006 @ 3:49pm):
One important thing to consider is once we start using a constitution to limit rights and freedoms and to enforce religious beliefs where will it end? This is just the first step down the road to a theocracy.
Anonymous (October 23, 2006 @ 1:28pm):
I believe the referendum has been worded in such a way that voters will be confused as to what yes/no means. Ron
Anonymous (October 31, 2006 @ 12:04pm):
To tell you the truth about this, same sex marriage.Is, I don't want to ruin tradition it is apart of somethin we have had for years. it is sick to see men holding hands with other men and the same as for women. It shows that our country is going to ruins. pramitting this is showing we can pass things that is unconstitutional, then we my- aswell let people get away with things in the constitution. Now thats how i feel on this matter.
Anonymous (November 3, 2006 @ 10:51am):
Defining marriage or changing marriage?
"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
As I see it, the marriage amendment on next week's ballot is simply defining marriage in Wisconsin, not changing marriage in Wisconsin. The amendment upholds the status quo--what we already have as "marriage" in our state.
First, we already recognize only marriages between one man and one woman. The proposed amendment is more specific than our current law, but it doesn't change the status quo.
Second, we don't recognize "a legal status similar to marriage" as marriage in our state now. The second part of the proposed amendment, again, is just defining what we already have.
If I am wrong, if this amendment is changing laws we already have on our books in Wisconsin, please tell me what these laws are.
Anonymous (November 7, 2006 @ 10:02am):
"Fair Wisconsin" is sending out last-minute phone messages trying to dupe people into believing that a "no" vote on the marriage ammendment is the opposite of what it really is. The messages are clearly designed to mislead and confuse conservatives into thinking that a "no" vote will prohibit gay marriage. It is a dishonest and shameful practice. If the only way they feel they can achieve their agenda is by confusing the issue, what does that say about the strength of their case? I am apalled.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 6:19pm):
why would people not want gays and lesbians to be given the right to be married?? it is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard. they are people too, and should be given the same rights.
