OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bill passes that could benefit Doyle
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rob Deters:
- SUVs and Earth Day do not mix (April 24, 2003)
- Lawlessness reigns in halls of Congress (April 6, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Defending equal rights (November 15, 2004)
- Defending homosexuals, defending marriage (November 13, 2003)
- Doyle's vetoes will lead to his demise (November 19, 2003)
- Letter to the Editor -- 11/20/03 (November 20, 2003)
- Frankenstein veto slashes, terrorizes (October 30, 2007)
by Rob Deters
Thursday, November 13, 2003
The Wisconsin Legislature passed a bill last week promptly vetoed by Gov. Doyle. Conservatives say the bill constitutes a compromise liberals should have found, at the very least, acceptable. The issue: gay marriage, or more specifically, the banning of it.
Conservatives, led by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), introduced the legislation to make sure that a “marriage” shall be specifically denoted as a union between a man and a woman.
I am proud to say I have been a lifelong member of Wisconsin. And Madison is a great city with many progressives in it. If I were to actually believe the old saying “Madison is a few square miles of fantasy surrounded by reality,” I’d use this bill as proof of it. Why? As much as I like my state, it is a fairly intolerant place, especially when it comes to gays.
Proof? Last week’s Badger Poll found that 58 percent of Wisconsinites found homosexuality “basically wrong.” It also found that 79 percent of respondents thought homosexuality was best not described or discussed in school and better left to parents at home. I’m sure that over half of those parents are going to deliver a balanced view of homosexuality, given that over half of them find it basically wrong.
Sixty percent of Wisconsinites find that defining marriage between members of the same sex is problematic. Fair enough. Only 48 percent of residents of this fair state would support civil unions granting equal rights for gay partners.
And even that is thrown into question when you consider the sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act himself. Rep. Fitzgerald says he would support a bill on civil unions, “but that would obviously depend on what it includes.” That qualified endorsement can only say one thing: Homosexuals are second-class citizens, and we do not intend to support them fully any time soon.
There is a simple phrase for what is going on here. It’s called “separate but equal,” and the Supreme Court looked on that with disapproval a long time ago.
Of course, you run into a lot more problems defining homosexuality than you do race. Is homosexuality a choice, a lifestyle or a genetically determined sexuality? Honestly, there is much literature but little proof for any of the above, but in any event, it does not matter. When it comes to defining a homosexual couple, it should be their actions, not their reasons for such actions, which prove their relationship.
One interesting fact from the recent Badger Poll: The majority of people under 30 said they supported gay marriage and civil unions. In addition, 81 percent of them said they knew a gay person, and the majority of them believed homosexuality was something with which you were born.
This is a very telling result. If you know people who are (gay, black, tall, able to speak a different language, Muslim, pick one) you are more likely to be tolerant of their lifestyle.
Why support gay marriage? Marriage is tied to a state of mind you can comprehend and easily transfer to homosexuals, even if you aren’t gay yourself.
There is one reason why you should support gay marriage — you’ve been in love. Honestly, if you’ve ever been in love, then gay marriage is a no-brainer. Love is, in not too sappy a way, an emotion that will never be gender-specific. You love your parents, your siblings, your friends and your significant others. If you’re gay, you just happen to love people of your same sex. Simple.
Fighting this emotion in the legislature is like fighting the drug war. The desire to change your consciousness, whether it’s through drugs, alcohol or love, is basically the same emotion. I know people as addicted to being in love as any one is to having a drink or getting high. Erasing that feeling, that desire, that unbelievable urge will not happen by legislating it away.
Conservatives say Gov. Doyle is sticking to his principles too much (not something Doyle gets accused of often) and that he should allow this. In a state with the first openly homosexual, elected representative (Rep. Tammy Baldwin), you would think there might be more support for gay marriage. But Wisconsin is just like any other state confronted with the unknown, as it holds back and clings to the familiar.
Does anyone think that allowing gays to marry will do anything to the institution of marriage? Marriage in this country is in shambles. Half of all marriages fail, so how can gays possibly contribute to the worsening of this already crumbled institution?
In addition, it is enormously hypocritical for conservatives to tell homosexuals to not engage in monogamous behavior. One of the biggest criticisms of homosexuality on the right has always been that it’s a “degenerate” lifestyle that encourages promiscuity. So when gays say they’d like to express their legal preference for one partner, you’d think conservatives would be more welcoming. Yet they have never actually embraced homosexuality — they simply pay it lip service.
Homosexuals simply want to be acknowledged as having the same desires as the rest of us to settle down and find a meaningful life with someone they love.
Denying them this is a silly, futile gesture. Of course, silly futile gestures are what the Wisconsin Legislature seems to do best.
Rob Deters (rvdeters@wisc.edu) is a second-year law student.
