The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

States should give same-sex couples same rights as all

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Elizabeth Sanger:

Bill banning intelligent design right for state (February 23, 2006)
New law does little to help (March 9, 2006)
Kumar brings true student voice (March 30, 2006)
Referendum fair gauge of opinion (March 30, 2006)
Affirmative action right for UW (April 13, 2006)

by Elizabeth Sanger

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Let's say you've been in a committed relationship with the person you love for 30 years. You've bought a house, paid off loans, raised a family, taken vacations and grown old with this person. You've forged a lasting bond based on mutual love and respect.

Sound like anyone you know? I could have been describing my parents, the neighbors down the street, the pastor at my local church or many other loving couples around the state of Wisconsin. I could have been talking about Carol and Virginia from Eau Claire. The only difference with Carol and Virginia is that they don't have an automatic right to make health care decisions for each other, to visit each other in the hospital, to file joint tax returns, to donate each other's organs after death, to take bereavement leave if the other dies, to be authorized drivers on each other's rental cars or even to deduct each other's medical expenses on their income tax returns. That's because Carol and Virginia are lesbians, and they aren't afforded any of the legal protections of a married couple.

Wednesday night at the Wisconsin Union Theater Evan Wolfson and Glenn Stanton squared off on the issue of gay marriage. It's sad that this debate is still going on in this state in 2005. Wisconsin, which has been a leader in passing laws to protect homosexuals from workplace and other discrimination, has failed to protect this same class of citizens when it comes to legal issues that affect the family. Not only have we failed to provide basic rights and responsibilities to real Wisconsin families, but we've also tried to make this denial permanent. Currently, members of our State Legislature have proposed an amendment to our constitution that would ban civil unions and marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

Our state Constitution was designed to protect people, not to hurt them. Article 1 reads, "All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights: among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The proposed amendment abuses our Constitution and attempts to deny to certain people in Wisconsin one of our three recognized essential rights. It's simply wrong to codify such discrimination.

Which of the rights that I named earlier would you be willing to give up? Currently, married couples in Wisconsin are granted over 1,200 rights and responsibilities by both federal and state law. Marriage isn't just a privilege — it's also a responsibility. It's illegal to physically beat your spouse and the law carries special punishments for doing so. If Wisconsin voters approve the proposed amendment to ban civil unions and marriage, gay and lesbian couples, and any unmarried couples for that matter, will be denied this special protection.

Injustices occur daily, whether it's the couple who has been together for 29 years and can't see each other after one is hospitalized with heart problems, or the mother whose daughter has had an allergic reaction to a bee sting and has to race across town to get a note from her partner — the legally recognized mother — to take their child to the hospital. The proposed amendment to our State Constitution would permanently enshrine this kind of unequal treatment toward Wisconsin families at some of their most vulnerable moments.

But what the amendment also seeks to accomplish is another roadblock down the path of equal treatment for all Wisconsin citizens. People can't control whom they love. The state shouldn't limit who gets legally recognized rights and responsibilities based on who wants to make their love a lifelong, publicly recognized commitment.

Gay and lesbian couples have every right to marry. Marriage is a contract that provides legal safeguards to people who have made a lasting commitment to each other. Denying these rights is morally and ethically unjustifiable. The first step for our state in achieving the equality deserved by all is to reject the proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban civil unions and gay marriage. After Wisconsinites make a strong stance that discrimination is wrong and unwelcome here, then we will be able to move on to press for true equality.

Elizabeth Sanger (esanger@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in literature.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 5:52am):

This topic has been written about ad nauseum in this newspaper, and your column on it really had nothing original to offer, just the usual ignorance on this topic that's expressed by the far left (and that is the only group that supports gay "marriage", as referendums supporting traditional marriage passed by 70% on average in the last election cycle).

First, marriage is a privilege, NOT a right. You improperly use these words interchangeably when talking about marriage, and there is a difference between the two. I don't have a right to marry a sibling, nor a 12 year-old girl. Likewise, anyone else, regardless of sexual preference, does not have a right to marry anyone he or she wants to.

Homosexuals may marry-- as long as it's to a member of the opposite sex. As marriage is an institution, for which government grants licenses, the people do have a right (and this is a true right) to set the boundaries for dispensation of those licenses. It's time that the left stops imposing their fringe views on everyone else through the judiciary and let the legislature and voters decide this issue.

Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 8:59am):

I like to see my sister marry my dad so her insurance would cover his medical expenses.

They love each other, they live together and have made a lasting commitment to each other. They don't have sex but is that a requirement? If so, how will this be monitored and proved for gay couples?

Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 5:21pm):

What exactly do straight people do to earn that "privilege," then? Is it pro-create? Because if so, I'm sure you agree we should forbid marriage to infertile women and men, as well as to post-menopausal women, all of whom are unable to have children. And those who just don't want to, while we're at it.

Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 9:14pm):

I'm all for gay marriage, but not civil unions. Point was made by second poster, but I'll make it again: what's stopping me and my brother from getting a civil union when he's no longer covered by my parents' health insurance, but he's still a student, so he has no coverage. I'm sure the paperwork and licensing fees associated with ending our civil union would pale in comparison to the cost of health insurance for the next 2 years while he finishes school.

Anonymous (September 23, 2005 @ 2:14am):

There's nothing stopping you from marrying your friend right now (provided he/she is of the opposite sex). If you are afraid of paperwork, take a trip to Vegas. You don't need to be in love or wanting a family to experience the financial benefits of heterosexual marriage, why are you saying that "loophole" would only be exploited with gay marriage or civil unions?

Anonymous (September 27, 2005 @ 3:07pm):

I just want to know why people are "AGAINST" gay marriage, when it would do absolutely nothing to harm them, or even affect their lives, in any possible way? In fact, NOT having it DOES seriously put a lot of gay couples and their families at risk. Obviously the antigay people are, like a lot of people these days, jumping on the bandwagon of political divisiveness that is coming to define this decade. So, are you guys having fun? Is this making you feel "political"? Does it really make you "righties" that happy and fulfilled to denounce an already disadvantaged minority group? While you are getting a hate buzz from being disgusted with gay people and wishing they would not exist, maybe you should sit back and think "gee, what are gay people actually doing to ME that is making ME so angry and upset?"

Then again, if people thought that way, there would be no discrimination, now would there?

Anonymous (August 15, 2006 @ 10:23pm):

Below is directly from the article:

Marriage isn't just a privilege it's also a responsibility. It's illegal to physically beat your spouse and the law carries special punishments for doing so. If Wisconsin voters approve the proposed amendment to ban civil unions and marriage, gay and lesbian couples, and any unmarried couples for that matter, will be denied this special protection.

The above statement is completing inaccurate, the writer did not find the truth, below is the Wisconsin State Statue on Domestic abuse:

46.95(1)(a)
(a) "Domestic abuse" means physical abuse, including a violation of s. 940.225 (1), (2) or (3), or any threat of physical abuse between adult family or adult household members, by a minor family or minor household member against an adult family or adult household member, by an adult against his or her adult former spouse or by an adult against an adult with whom the person has a child in common.

No where does that say that it only applies to married couples. Roommates and girlfriends/boyfriends get arrested on domestics across the state. So don't let this writer scare you that if you enact this amendment you can be beaten if you are not married, it will be against the law as much after the amendment as it is now.