OPINION & EDITORIAL
Defending homosexuals, defending marriage
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mac VerStandig:
- How the Pentagon won the war over Baghdad and the war over public opinion (April 25, 2003)
- Hypocrisy floats riverboats casinos (September 9, 2005)
- Hate crime debate needed on campus (January 20, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Defending equal rights (November 15, 2004)
- Letter to the Editor -- 11/20/03 (November 20, 2003)
- Veto override a shortsighted victory (September 29, 2005)
- Bill passes that could benefit Doyle (November 13, 2003)
- Doyle's stance on marriage contrary to popular opinion (October 27, 2003)
by Mac VerStandig
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Something is rotten in the state of Wisconsin.
The Legislature overwhelmingly passed Assembly Bill 475, better known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), only to see their baked meats coldly furnish forth Gov. Doyle’s veto less than 48 hours later. The bill is now again before the assembly, where — if representatives vote as they did last week — the governor’s veto will be thankfully overridden.
DOMA states, “marriage is a civil contract between one man and one woman” and asserts that Wisconsin will not recognize any “marriages” inconsistent with that definition, regardless of whether they were performed in one of the other 49 states (a clause that may or may not be in conflict to the United States Constitution’s fourth article, which asserts: “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.”)
But to truly understand this bill’s significance, one must first comprehend the controversy of homosexual unions.
On one side are those who favor the recognition of gay marriages and feel that they should be legally treated no differently than heterosexual marriages. On the other side are those who feel society should not condone that which the Bible explicitly prohibits.
Yet the debate seems to be lopsided at best. For all the outrage the far right expresses toward homosexual acts, the degree of personal affect seems to be lacking at best. Leviticus 18:22 does state, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination,” but even the most radical interpretation of the Bible renders consensual homosexuality a victimless crime.
Conversely, those who consider themselves gay — whether such is for reasons of election or biology — are very much affected by the matter, as they are currently unable to fully enjoy the rights of a married person. This is a sad statement about social equality.
It is clear that anti-marriage laws do not deter people from becoming homosexuals, so what do Bible-thumping right-wingers stand to gain by continuing to deny recognition to same-sex couples?
And so it only seems proper for conservatives to give some ground here, something they appear to have done with DOMA, an olive branch that Governor Doyle was too partisan to accept.
How is the controversial bill a peace offering? The key lies not in what the legislation states but rather what it doesn’t state. Although AB 475 denies recognition to homosexual marriages, it doesn’t deny rights to homosexual couples. In fact, the bill leaves open the door for a new piece of legislation similar to Vermont’s Civil Union statute that would treat gays in the same manner as heterosexuals in every regard but for a semantic one (substituting the words “civil union” for “marriage”), something the Wisconsin State Assembly should act on.
And so DOMA is really a petty game of linguistics. It is a bill that radically values form over substance, a way of conceding the homosexual rights debate to the left while still allowing the right to maintain some degree of dignity through a verbal convention.
Strangely, however, there is no reason why the semantic differential should offend the left. Homosexuals are not asking to be treated as male/female couples, but rather simply recognized as couples. And so a difference does exist: the word “marriage” is being applied to those unions of men and women while the words “civil union” are being applied to those unions of men and men or women and women.
The mere fact that we are tardy in awarding gays’ rights does not mean that we should overlook biological differences. It took nearly 150 years for us to grant women certain rights and yet we didn’t start referring to them as “men.” When slavery was abolished, we didn’t declare all those with African heritage to be “Caucasian.”
But Gov. Doyle is not the only person who has set back the gay rights movement recently; the New Hampshire Supreme Court did their part as well. In a bizarre case, a man sued his wife for divorce on grounds of adultery after learning of her sexual relations with another woman. However, the high court ruled that since lesbian sexual relations do not constitute intercourse per se, women cannot commit adultery with other women.
The implications of the ruling are devastating; the New Hampshire Supreme Court has essentially declared that lesbian sex is something less than heterosexual sex, a decision which is not only offensive but will also wreak havoc upon any potential civil union laws in the state (is polygamy really to be allowed for homosexuals and not heterosexuals?).
The debate over gay rights has raged on long enough. Conservatives in the Wisconsin State Assembly should be applauded for taking the first step toward a meaningful compromise that can and should appease both sides. But the legislature must go further, first overturning the governor’s veto and then passing a civil union act so that the good faith of AB 475 will not be called into question. Other states should follow with their courts treating homosexuals no differently than heterosexuals.
If these actions are taken, a long-standing point of political contention can be settled. And then we can truly say, “The rest is silence.”
Mac VerStandig (mac@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in rhetoric.
