OPINION & EDITORIAL
Gay-marriage ban bad for Wisconsin
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Emily Friedman:
- Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A delicate topic (November 26, 2007)
- Court weighs culture, law (October 31, 2006)
- Religious sanctimony unnecessary for marriage (November 7, 2006)
- Questions emerge on marriage issue (September 4, 2006)
- A critical aspect of marriage involves creating a family (September 22, 2005)
by Emily Friedman
Friday, December 2, 2005
The debate over banning same-sex marriage has been a growing national issue for several years. This week, it hit home, appearing on the front pages of both student newspapers and getting coverage in both The Capital Times and The Wisconsin State Journal. It's bad enough that this issue is still even a topic of conversation. Now it's the subject of a constitutional amendment that would lead to banning same-sex marriage in Wisconsin.
This is a bad idea.
The proposed amendment — referred to as either Assembly Joint Resolution 67 or Senate Joint Resolution 53 — would limit the legal definition of marriage to heterosexuals. The amendment states, "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."
The arguments in favor of this amendment come down to the belief that the traditional institution of marriage must be protected, especially for the sake of the children. The two leading supporters of the amendment — State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, and State Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin — argue that recognizing only heterosexual marriages will give children the greatest amount of nurturing and protection.
What? Did I hear that correctly? The amendment's supporters would rather a child be in foster care, where abuse and neglect often occur, or worse, in orphanages with little hope of adoption. According to the Administration for Children and Families, as of Sept. 30, 2001, there were an estimated 542,000 children in foster care. But as long as they avoid the dreaded same-sex marriage, the kids will be fine. Right? Wrong.
Supporters also argue that if same-sex marriage is permitted, it will open the door to all kinds of perversions. Many worry about a dangerous slippery-slope scenario in which the absence of a clear protection of marriage will open the door to the legalization of behavior such as polygamy, pedophilia and incest.
There is no argument to be made that homosexuals are worthier or better suited to be parents. Similarly, there is no argument that heterosexuals are better parents, either. Why, then, do the amendment's supporters fail to realize that if they really do care about the children, they will focus on what is most important: that children grow up in caring, safe homes with parents who love them?
I understand that marriage was previously thought of as a purely heterosexual institution. But it is time to realize things are different now. Just as we've come to understand that women and minorities deserve to advance in ways never before deemed possible, all people — including homosexuals — deserve the benefits of marriage. Those benefits go beyond the minimum legal and financial advantages now extended to homosexual couples.
Just as there will always be racists, there will always be homophobes. But the strides we have taken both here in Madison and in society as a whole are tremendous. The proposed constitutional amendment will only turn back the clock.
Emily Friedman (ecfriedman@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
Anonymous (December 2, 2005 @ 9:20am):
Emily, what's this about children not having a good home to grow up in? This is not an amendment to take away custody of a gay couple's children, and it is not an amendment to ban gay adoption. It's an amendment to ban gay marriage. If 2 homosexuals want to adopt a child and bring her up in a "caring, safe home with parents who love them," they can. This amendment will not prevent that. They simply can not have a legal marriage. It doesn't mean they can't live together and bring up children together. While the wisdom of this amendment is certainly suspect, the problems you've identified simply won't come from this amendment.
Anonymous (December 2, 2005 @ 9:39am):
Nice work, Emily. A topic worthy of readers' attention. You've come a long way from whining about all those big jocks in the gym a year ago.
Anonymous (December 2, 2005 @ 11:37am):
This one is just too easy ....
Anonymous (December 2, 2005 @ 2:33pm):
"It's an amendment to ban gay marriage. If 2 homosexuals want to adopt a child and bring her up in a "caring, safe home with parents who love them," they can. This amendment will not prevent that."
That is the most ridiculous and offensive thing I have ever heard. This amendment takes away all of the rights and obligations associated with marriage, including being able to provide medical benefits for their family (which includes their kids). There is absolutely nothing in this amendment that suggests any preservation of any familial rights whatsoever. Moreover, other states are already feeling the consequences of thei anti-gay amendments - for instance, one child almost died because she needed medicine, yet her biological father was at work. Her other father was not granted permission to sign for her at the hospital because he was no longer considered a family member because of their amendment. And if you think gay people and their family aren't going to suffer (more) psychological damage from having to deal with external homophobia and our government's efforts to create a second-class of citizens, then you are completely naive.
Same-sex couples have already had to spend thousands and thousands of dollars just approximating the protections and benefits that heterosexual marriages are unquestioningly afforded. Naturally, when families don't have that kind of money, they are left without any of these rights. Many other rights come with AND ONLY WITH marriage, and they cannot be bought with any amount of money.
I sat at that capitol and heard the "arguments" in favor of this amendment. I had never heard such horrible, ignorant, viciously spiteful things in all my life. Gays and lesbians were compared to child molestors, bestiality, even necrophiliacs. They were blamed for everything from Soddom and Gomorrah to Hurricane Katrina. Here's my favorite quote: "It's absurd to say that everybody should be equal." I swear I could not tell what century I was in.
There was not a single thing said in favor of this amendment that was not a lie or a mean-spirited insult.
Representative Gundrum began his speech by detailing the dire need for an amendment to ban gay marriage in a state in which gay marriage is already illegal: because Wisconsin has been particularly "susceptible" to civil rights progress. SUSCEPTIBLE?? To civil rights? As if they are a bad thing, are you kidding me?
Representative Gundrum was asked what the harm of gay marriage would be to society, and (after fumbling for an answer, because he clearly had none thought out) he said it would force schools to teach that homosexuals are normal, which would make teenagers, who are "already confused", more likely to consider this "lifestyle".
After decades of research, every reputable medical and health organization in this country will testify that homosexuality is not a disease, cannot be cured, nor can it be caught like a cold, much less imposed on somebody else. Yet Gundrum insists on exploiting the fears of a homophobic society. Like a typical paranoid, sexually repressed, most likely latent homosexual man, Gundrum is scared to death that the homos will snatch up people's children in the night, take them to some secret underground gay academy and force them to learn Feng Shui.
Absolutely nothing this man, or his partner-in-crime Fitzgerald, said that day was true in any way. He said gay marriage is bad for children because they cannot provide "gender balance". Yet all the available evidence has shown that children of same-sex parents do not differ at all from those of straight parents in all the areas that were examined, which included gender identity, sexual orientation, cognitive functioning and relationships with peers. Furthermore, if you think children of gay parents are already disadvantaged, why in God's name would you support taking away MORE of that family's rights and protections, thus disadvantaging them further???
Gundrum also tried to distance himself from bigots of the past by saying he had nothing against gay people, and he thought it was okay for them to walk around in a park together. How benevolent. I'm sure all those gays and lesbians wanted nothing more for their lives then to wander around a park.
Then he went on to say that gay people should marry people of the same sex and have children - completely contradicting his claim to not be against gay people. Not to mention, it isn't true anyway. If an openly gay person married a person of the opposite sex, it would most likely be considered fraud.
Those who spoke against the amendment spoke of both their personal stories and the detrimental effect it would have on Wisconsin's economy. One man broke down in tears as he recalled the murder of his lover, and how the hospital would not let him in to see him as he lay dying. One psychologist said "discrimination" and "oppression" did not come close to describe what societal homophobia does to gays and lesbians, and suggested "torture" and "abuse" describe it much more accurately. One lawyer actually thanked the proponents for being so openly hostile and illogical in their blatant public bashing of gays and lesbians, because any law based on animus is particularly easy to repeal. Religious leaders, mainly Christian and Jewish, were on hand to talk about how absolutely far from the teachings of Jesus this amendment and its supporters truly are.
The last speaker that day was a sad old Christian man who said he had never heard such terrible, hateful and vicious slander come out of the mouths of people who called themselves followers of Jesus Christ.
This amendment is a vile and hateful kick in the teeth to gays and lebsians and their families, who are already tortured and tormented daily by their government, their religious leaders and their fellow Americans. It will most definitely go down as one of the worst mistakes this country has ever made, and along with that, those who fought against this amendment will be remembered as heroes and true Americans.
Anonymous (December 4, 2005 @ 9:54pm):
True American heros? Don't you think that ia a bit of a stretch...?
Anonymous (December 5, 2005 @ 11:32am):
If a child is part of a gay marriage home will that effect the child? will the child feel alone or sad to the fact that he or she has no real mother or a real father. how will this child be in he long run with the way they will be treated? how many of the childs friends do you think he or she will invite over to his of her home? did you ever think they would feel not so normal when a school play comes up and the child see's a happy family with a mother and a father. they won't ever be able to feel the feeling of having a mother or a father. also how would the child's sexual life come in to play in the long run if they see their parents who are gay?
Teena Sabin (May 22, 2006 @ 6:42pm):
Dear Mr. Michael Heath,
On your website it say's "Homosexuality is a sin that arouses God's anger in a special way."
http://www.cclmaine.org/Record/Stories/02%2003%2005.htm
I would point out to you sir, that while they were "eating, drinking and marrying" (obviously heterosexuals)"the floods came upon them" in Noahs day (Book of Genesis), God flooded and drowned the entire human race -- except Noah and his - because of their abominations. I'd say heterosexuals arouse Gods anger in "special" ways. Your anger toward a specific culture is not justification for discrimination, inciting hatred and not especially sanctioning such via Gods Word. Besides, Sodom and Gomorrah was about rape and other factors and you should "take care of your OWN Salvation in fear and trembling".
Traditional theologians and bible scholars accept that the sins of Sodom were homosexuality and rape. However, these were not the only sins:
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Biblical scholars debate the proper English interpretation of this passage. Most scholars feel that "strange flesh" is a reference to homosexuality, while some feel that the "strange flesh" involved refers to bestiality.
Ezekiel 16:49-50: Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
This idea is paralleled in the Gospels when Jesus compares an inhospitable reception to Sodom:
Matthew 10:14-15: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
"Commentary on Genesis 19". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible". [4]. 1706.
Verses 4-11 Now it appeared, beyond contradiction, that the cry of Sodom was no louder than there was cause for. This night's work was enough to fill the measure. For we find here,
Note, When the disease of sin has become epidemical, it is fatal to any place, Isa. 1:5-7.
II. That they had arrived at the highest pitch of wickedness; they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly (ch. 13:13)
If people look for bible substance - there is no sin greater than another.
