NEWS
TV ad backs gay-marriage ban
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Courtney Johnson:
- Construction pops up on State Street this spring (November 6, 2007)
- Woods ahead in fundraising race (March 28, 2007)
- E-mail sparks privacy concern (October 9, 2007)
- Big Ten Network reaches deal with UW housing (August 31, 2007)
- City agency to run Halloween entertainment (May 10, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Wisconsinites support gay-marriage ban, uncertain on civil unions (April 13, 2004)
- Same-sex marriage ban clears state Senate (March 22, 2004)
- Amendment backers spread lies, critics say (October 12, 2006)
- Senate takes up gay-marriage ban (March 11, 2004)
by Courtney Johnson
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Vote Yes for Marriage, the advocacy campaign for the constitutional marriage amendment, unveiled its first TV advertisement Monday. The 30-second spot features children expressing their confusion regarding effects of same-sex unions.
The organization aims to rally supporters for the proposed amendment that will be on the Wisconsin ballot Nov. 7.
If it passes, the amendment would define marriage as strictly between one woman and one man.
"Changing the definition of marriage from 'one woman and one man' to anything else is going to impact what our children are taught in schools," said Rocco DeFilippis, a representative for Vote Yes for Marriage. "Since the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation and raising children, it's important to protect the definition."
DeFilippis said after the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling that legalized gay marriage, public schools in Massachusetts were required to teach homosexuality as a possible lifestyle. He said he is concerned children will come home confused, with many difficult questions for their parents.
But state Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, said the failure of this amendment would not change what children are taught in schools.
"If the amendment fails, nothing changes," Black said, adding pro-amendment groups are using this angle as a "scare tactic."
The proposed amendment also prohibits "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals," which would prevent relationships such as civil unions from being recognized in Wisconsin.
Fair Wisconsin, the leading anti-amendment organization, is focusing much of its attention on this second sentence of the amendment.
"Again, we're seeing supporters of the amendment sort of trying to fool voters into thinking that what we're voting on is gay marriage, which it's not," said Rachel Strauch-Nelson, press secretary for Fair Wisconsin. Gay marriage will still be illegal if the amendment fails, she added.
But Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, who authored the amendment, said he believes marriage could be vulnerable in Wisconsin without a strict definition of its terms.
"We need to pass this amendment to prevent activist judges in Wisconsin from doing what they have done in several other states, including Massachusetts and last week in New Jersey, and that is legalizing same-sex marriage from the bench," Gundrum said.
Last Wednesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, such as tuition assistance, survivors' benefits and spousal privilege in criminal trials.
Even without the amendment, the University of Wisconsin is the only Big Ten college that does not offer domestic partner benefits to employees.
Yet this year, the UW University Committee, the executive committee of the UW Faculty Senate, publicly opposed the marriage amendment. The Faculty Senate also opposed the amendment when it was suggested in 2004.
"Both the domestic-partner benefit issue and sort of the environment it would create here in Wisconsin are reasons it could be very detrimental to the university," Strauch-Nelson said.
She added the university has already seen faculty members leave because of the proposed amendment.
But Gundrum said that these partner benefits are not why people leave.
"I assume [the professors who left] were replaced by other good professors," he said.
Anonymous (October 31, 2006 @ 5:06am):
On one hand we are told that gays are such a tiny population that their obtaining marriage rights would in no way affect that institution. Then, we are told that if the amendment passes proclaiming marriage between a man and a woman our institutions of higher learing will fall into total disarray. Suddenly, there will no longer be enough qualified teachers to go around should gays decide to leave the state.
One would assume if a small number of gays cannot affect marriage then common sense tells us there would be an equally neglible affect on colleges and universities.
Anonymous (October 31, 2006 @ 7:14am):
To anon @ 5:06--so if it only affects a small number of people then what's the big deal, right? I could have a field day with your absurd reasoning
Anonymous (October 31, 2006 @ 8:34am):
So, some married couples feel "threatened" by same sex marriage. What exactly IS the threat?
Anonymous (October 31, 2006 @ 1:29pm):
Hey, guess what? That's not the issue. The issue is we are all humans, we are all the same, and we should all have the same rights. So stay out of other people's bedrooms and worry about your own agenda. If you don't want to have a gay marriage, then don't get one.
Anonymous (October 31, 2006 @ 1:45pm):
Anon 5:06 and Anon 7:41;I think university will be affected not necessarily by the number of gay employees possibly leaving, but those on staff that benefit by being able to include domestic partners in health insurance, housing and other services. This includes many male and female relationships among younger faculty and staff such as Assitant Proffessors, Post Docs, as well as many graduate students.
Anonymous (October 31, 2006 @ 2:20pm):
Gay marriage isn't a big deal, it does only impact a small percentage of the population, and we ONLY HEAR ABOUT IT IN ELECTION YEARS.
Anonymous (October 31, 2006 @ 4:21pm):
If we let the gays marry, it's only a matter of time before people start marrying shit like stingrays and pool toys. End the madness and keep marriage to men and women.
Anonymous (October 31, 2006 @ 6:16pm):
1:29; you're an idiot; The issue is we are all humans, we are all the same, and we should all have the same rights. If you don't want to have a gay marriage, then don't get one.
We do have the same rights, jack ass.
We all have equal rights to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is equal. If you don't want a hetero marriage, then dont get one.
Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 1:49am):
Hmmm, good point Mr. DiFilipps. I hadn't thought about the fact that if we deny an entire group of people the right to marry, parents might not have to deal with those "difficult questions" from their confused children. Let's think about this: should we ban gay marriage? Or should we force those poor innocent straight couples to be good parents and sit down and have a conversation with their kids? This is ridiculous.
Anonymous (November 5, 2006 @ 3:33pm):
To Anonymously @ 1:29pm; If my taxes go to pay for Gay Marriage benifits at UWM then it is my business. If we open the door to gay marriage then why not polygamy or why not let teachers marry thier 8th grade students. By your thinking then no one has a right to judge anyone's practices in the bedroom. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Don't like it, to bad!
Anonymous (November 8, 2006 @ 4:48pm):
Thats really unfair...
